BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 5 March (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Comparative Performance Data

Angie Bray: What assessment he has made of the benefits of comparative performance data in raising standards in the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: Comparative performance data are essential to raise standards in the NHS. I have therefore commissioned a review from the Nuffield Trust to consider whether aggregate ratings of provider performance should be used in health and social care, and if so, how best this should be done.

Angie Bray: My right hon. Friend will be aware that NHS North West London has made considerable use of comparative performance data to justify closing four A and E departments in one concentrated part of its area. Charing Cross, Ealing, Hammersmith and Central Middlesex are the four A and E departments closest to my constituents, who will be wondering how their closure will raise standards of health-care provision locally. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be strong support among my constituents for any calls to review the decision and the use of comparative performance data?

Jeremy Hunt: I first congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning extremely hard on behalf of the views and concerns of her constituents throughout the process of the decision that was finally made by NHS North West London last Tuesday. Comparative performance data have a very important role to play, particularly with regard to excess mortality of people who use A and E on weekends. I am, however, aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns and will consider them carefully if, as is likely, the decision is reviewed by Ealing council.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Secretary of State for his previous answer. Comparative data are essential in compiling an evidence base on which to plan effective health interventions. Will he use the radiotherapy data sets that his Department publishes as a basis to inform planned investments in advanced radiotherapy systems, particularly in regions like mine which lack such equipment?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the hon. Gentleman asks a lot of questions about radiotherapy. We use a strict evidence base before we make any investments. We also want to embrace innovation, but our absolute priority is to save as many lives as possible from cancer. He will know that we are in the lower half of the European league tables when it comes to cancer survival rates, and that is something that we are determined to put right.

John Pugh: On collecting performance data, has the Secretary of State seen the NHS Confederation publication “Information overload: tackling bureaucracy in the NHS”, which points to a great deal of duplication in information? What is his reaction to it?

Jeremy Hunt: There is far too much bureaucracy in the NHS, which is why I have asked the chief executive of the NHS Confederation to report to me on how we could reduce the bureaucratic burden on hospitals by a third. If there is a lesson from the Francis report on the tragedy at Mid Staffs, it is that we need to free up the time of people on the front line to care, which is what they went into the NHS to do.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) asked a key question. Under the secondary legislation being introduced by the Secretary of State under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, local commissioning groups will be forced to allow private providers into the NHS. These private providers will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, which will make it harder for patients to compare data between providers. It cannot benefit NHS patients for core clinical services to be given to private providers that do not have to conform to the same standards of transparency as those in the NHS. Will the Secretary of State see reason, ensure a level playing field for the NHS and withdraw the section 75 regulations without delay?

Jeremy Hunt: Who exactly are the section-75 bogeymen that the hon. Gentleman hates: Whizz-Kids who are supplying services to disabled children in Tower Hamlets, or Mind, which is supplying psychological therapy to people in Middlesbrough? The reality is that those regulations are completely consistent with the procurement guidelines that his Government sent to primary care trusts. He needs to stop trying to pretend that we are doing something different from what his Government were doing when in fact we are doing exactly the same.

Local Authority Public Health Responsibilities

Rehman Chishti: What support his Department has given to local authorities in respect of their new public health responsibilities.

Anna Soubry: The Department has continued to work with all its partners to ensure that there is a swift and effective transition of public health responsibilities to where they should be—back with local authorities. We have made available £15 million to ensure that the transition is successful and complies with all the requirements that we have laid down.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Minister for that answer. I invited the Silver Star charity to my constituency on Friday, where it offered free diabetes tests to all residents. Will local authorities be encouraged to work with such charities to improve public health?

Anna Soubry: The Silver Star bus is making many journeys because as well as going to my hon. Friend’s constituency, it is coming to mine on Saturday. It is an outstanding charity that provides diagnosis at a local level. I pay tribute in particular to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) because the charity goes to communities that are often hard to reach, such as the Asian community, where we need to do good work to reduce the level of diabetes, both type 1 and type 2. I look forward to local authorities working with outstanding charities such as Silver Star.

John Healey: Why is the public health grant for next year £58 per person in Barnsley and £53 per person in Rotherham, but £130 per person in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea, especially given that deprivation is less and life expectancy at least seven years longer in those wealthy, Tory, London boroughs?

Anna Soubry: I do not accept that for one moment. I am exceptionally proud of this Government’s commitment to public health which, in the difficult times that we have inherited, has ensured that local authorities are in some cases receiving an increase of some 10% in spending on public health. That is a record that I am proud of and that the Labour Government could not have matched.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend will be aware that the local authorities and the Food Standards Agency have a public health responsibility to ensure that food entering schools and hospitals is appropriately labelled and is safe and healthy to eat. Does she have absolute confidence in the procedures that have been followed in that regard or might she be prepared to review them?

Anna Soubry: I am grateful for that question. I pay tribute to all my hon. Friend’s work on this matter, especially as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. This has been a difficult time for all concerned. We need to ensure that all food is what it says on the label. Important work needs to be done to ensure that that is the case and to restore confidence to all consumers. We are very mindful of that in the Department.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for her very kind comments. I know that the charity Silver Star is looking forward to visiting her constituency on Saturday and testing her for diabetes. I am sure that we will find her in perfect health. I remind her that, according to the national health service, it will take five years before all diabetics have access to the full nine
	checks. Will she consider issuing guidelines to local health and wellbeing boards to ensure that they raise awareness of diabetes?

Anna Soubry: I am concerned, as we all are, about diabetes and about the recent report. We have accepted all but one of its recommendations and a lot more work needs to be done. I pay tribute to Silver Star and to the work of Diabetes UK, for example in Boots. I was happy to go to the launch of a new system whereby people can go to clinics at Boots and get the sort of checks that Silver Star is doing. We recognise that there is a lot more work to be done and are making every effort to ensure that there is a huge improvement in the diagnosis and outcomes of everybody who is affected by diabetes.

A and E and Maternity Provision (South-east London)

Simon Hughes: What recent assessment he has made of the future demand for accident and emergency and maternity services at (a) Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and (b) King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

Jeremy Hunt: I have accepted the trust special administrator’s broad recommendations on the future of A and E and maternity services in south-east London. Appendix E of the administrator’s final report outlines the forecast A and E activity and births in south-east London, and the methodology used to determine that information. That includes activity at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s answer. Following his statement and decision, does he recognise that there are still two significant concerns? The first is that any downgrade of A and E and maternity services in Lewisham will put pressure on the other trusts which they cannot cope with. The second is that there is not yet support among all GPs and clinicians, including in Lewisham, for the current plan. Will he assure me that he will seek their support before anything is implemented, and that he will give us the assurances that we need?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman outlines. As he knows, we have allocated £37 million to help the other four A and E departments that will take the 25% of cases that will no longer go to Lewisham to deal with that extra capacity. He is right to say that the way in which the plan is implemented will be critical. We need to do it properly and extremely carefully to ensure that we meet the concerns that he talks about.

Joan Ruddock: When the Secretary of State announced his decision to downgrade Lewisham’s A and E services and transfer the patients to St Thomas’ and King’s, he said that Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, had reviewed those proposals and that:
	“He believes that…these proposals…could save up to 100 lives every year”. —[Official Report, 31 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 1075.]
	Having read Sir Bruce Keogh’s review, I can tell the House that he makes no mention whatsoever of saving 100 lives each year. Will the Secretary of State now apologise for misleading the House?

Jeremy Hunt: No. What Sir Bruce Keogh did—

Mr Speaker: Order. Just before the Secretary of State replies, I ought to say to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) that she is perhaps suggesting that the Secretary of State may have inadvertently, rather than deliberately, misled the House. Could she just confirm that? A nod of the head would suffice.

Joan Ruddock: I am happy to do that, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: That is the right hon. Lady’s suggestion, and it is for the Secretary of State to respond as he thinks fit.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Sir Bruce Keogh accepts the calculations that were made in the proposals put forward by the trust special administrator that the plans would be likely to save about 100 lives a year, because they would allow the hospitals in south-east London to move towards the London quality standard, which would mean reducing excess mortality at weekends. Sir Bruce Keogh accepted that, and I accepted his view of it.

Patrick Mercer: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Many London hospitals and the representatives thereof have an interest in the question. Newark is some distance away, but I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question will be not about Newark but purely about these London hospitals. On that basis, I am delighted to hear from him.

Patrick Mercer: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: I am disappointed, but never mind. We will hear from the hon. Gentleman ere long on another matter, I feel sure.

Heidi Alexander: Demand for A and E services at Guy’s and St Thomas’ and at King’s will go through the roof if Lewisham’s full A and E closes. The Secretary of State may claim that he is keeping a smaller A and E at Lewisham, but that is nothing more than dangerous spin. No blue-light ambulances will call at Lewisham under his plans, and even the College of Emergency Medicine says that they do not meet its definition of an emergency department. How on earth can the Secretary of State be so confident that other hospitals in south-east London will be able to cope once he has taken the axe to Lewisham?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise that the hon. Lady has been campaigning hard for her constituents, but she massively overstates her case. The reality of the proposals is that 25% of the people who go to Lewisham A and E will no longer go there—the most complex cases among her constituents, who will get better treatment as a result. Those 25% will be spread among four other A and E
	departments, and we are allocating £37 million to help them upgrade their capacity. That is a sensible proposal that will save the lives of her constituents.

Andrew Gwynne: Local Members of Parliament are right to raise concerns about future capacity at Guy’s and St Thomas’ and at King’s. The recent King’s Fund report showed that between October and December 2012, many A and E departments in England faced their worst winter in almost a decade. Standards of care are deteriorating, with too many people waiting too long to be seen and many being left on trolleys in corridors or waiting in ambulances stuck outside A and E. Does the Secretary of State now accept that the NHS is struggling to cope with the toxic mix of cuts and reorganisation, and that patients in south-east London and elsewhere are paying the price for this Government’s mismanagement of the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: Really, from a party that closed or downgraded 12 A and E departments when in office, I would expect a slightly more mature attitude to an extremely difficult and complex problem. We will not take any lessons in meeting A and E targets from that lot. The reality is that we met our A and E targets last year, but in Wales, where Labour cut the NHS budget by 8%, they have not met their A and E targets since 2009.

Sexual Health Policy

Russell Brown: What the reason is for the time taken to produce the Government’s sexual health policy document; and when he now expects it to be published.

Kate Green: What the reason is for the time taken to produce the Government’s sexual health policy document.

Anna Soubry: This is an important document, which we want to get right. I anticipate that it will be published next month.

Russell Brown: Will the sexual health policy document contain a strategic plan, effectively resourced by Government, to address and reduce HIV stigma, especially among health care professionals, the police, media, teachers and social services? Perhaps a good starting point could be to draw on the lessons and the success of the Government’s anti-stigma work on mental health.

Anna Soubry: I certainly support the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman’s question, and make it clear that I wanted to ensure that the document included the need for everybody to eradicate prejudice in all sexual health work. I was very keen to put that in the document, and I am sure he will join me in welcoming its publication, which will, we hope, be next month.

Kate Green: The under-18 pregnancy rate has fallen by 25% in the past 10 years. Will the Minister confirm that the strategy document will make it clear that it is important to protect specialist, dedicated sexual health services for young people, such as the Brook service at the Talkshop in Trafford in my constituency?

Anna Soubry: The answer is an unequivocal yes.

Mark Spencer: Does my hon. Friend recognise the excellent progress that has been made in vaccination against the human papillomavirus to prevent cervical cancer in young girls? Will she find the time to meet me to discuss the benefits of vaccinating boys against that virus?

Anna Soubry: Yes, it is always a great pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, and he raises an important issue. I have met a number of other colleagues to talk about their concerns about screening—or rather the lack of screening—for young women under the age of 25 in relation to cervical cancer. That is a concern and we look forward to working on that. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Liz Kendall: The Government have been woefully complacent about producing their sexual health strategy. The Minister constantly says that responsibility for decisions lies locally, but will she admit that the Government’s reorganisation has created huge confusion, splitting the commissioning of sexual health services between GPs, councils and the national board, and that the Government’s lack of interest has delayed the sexual health strategy by 21 months? Will she explain the reasons for the delay, and when the strategy finally comes out, will she commit to it addressing seriously the rationing of access to contraceptive services for women aged over 25?

Anna Soubry: Is it not remarkable to have criticism of a reorganisation from someone who supported a Government who had nine reorganisations in nine years? The sexual health strategy document is very important, which is why we are working hard to ensure that it is absolutely right. I re-wrote a large section to ensure that it will deliver—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), from a sedentary position, says “Ah.” It is an important document and we want to get it right, and I am sure she will welcome it when it is published. However, let me make it clear: any delay in the document is not preventing rightful commissioning at a local level. I saw that yesterday when I went to Bedford and met the Brook organisation and the Terrence Higgins Trust, which have long been engaged, certainly in that county, in a tendering process from the local authority to continue to deliver excellent services.

Whittington Hospital

Jeremy Corbyn: What recent discussions he has had with the Whittington hospital on the proposed disposal of its assets and reductions in medical and non-medical staff.

Daniel Poulter: This is a matter for the local NHS, in particular the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust. Neither the Secretary of State nor the ministerial team have met with the trust recently on this subject.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is a disappointing reply from the Minister. Is he aware that the Whittington is a successful, popular, local district general hospital, yet,
	as part of its application to become a foundation trust, it is proposing to: sell off a quarter of its land; make 500 of its staff, including many nurses, redundant; and reduce the number of beds to 177, roughly half the current figure? This is, apparently, to provide a better service to the community, a point totally lost on the thousands of local people who are angry at the reduction in their hospital services. They see it as a prelude to its ultimate closure as a district general hospital with an A and E department. Will the Minister take an interest and perhaps intervene to protect a very good local hospital from this not very sensible plan?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that the trust has handled this issue badly at a local level, but, as he will know, decisions about local health care reside with local trusts. The point is this: if we look at the plans, the trust is talking about selling off land that is mostly not used for clinical purposes and to reinvest that money in front-line patient care: investing £10 million in improving the maternity department, which has already benefited from £750,000 from the Government only this year; £2.9 million in the same-day treatment centre to support A and E and treat patients faster; and £1.9 million for a new undergraduate education centre and library. Those assets are being sold off to directly influence and improve patient care, which has to be a good thing.

Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware of how angry and concerned Londoners are about the threats to their health service—not just about the £17 million property sales at the Whittington and the drop in bed numbers, but about the threat to four A and Es in north-west London and, of course, the A and E in Lewisham? Ministers have accused campaigners of overstating the case. Is that not a complacent attitude? Surely doctors and residents on the ground know the value of these services better than Ministers in Whitehall. Is he aware that Londoners came out in unprecedented numbers to fight for Lewisham hospital and will continue to fight for the best possible NHS services in our region?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that service changes have to be clinically led, meet the tests we have outlined and engage with communities effectively, but the point is that the previous Government also redesigned and changed services, very often for the benefit of patients. When the redesign of services is clinically led and services are better delivered for patients, that has to be a good thing so let us look at these proposals. If they are clinically led, let us see whether they deliver improved care for patients, and if they do, it is the right thing to do.

Alcohol Consumption (Pregnancy)

Kelvin Hopkins: What assessment his Department has made of harm caused to babies by alcohol consumed during pregnancy; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry: Foetal alcohol syndrome is a severe, lifelong condition caused by heavy alcohol consumption
	during pregnancy, and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is usually less severe. There is a consensus, however, that FASD is more widespread.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer and for her recent letter to me on this subject. She will be aware of the Medical Research Council’s research suggesting that 7,000 babies are born every year suffering from serious genetic and permanent damage. Just as worrying, however, is that even moderate consumption can have an impact on IQ. In America, all drinks containers must have the following written on them:
	“According to the surgeon general, women should not drink alcohol beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects.”
	When will the Government insist that all drinks containers in Britain carry the same slogan?

Anna Soubry: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Our advice is clear and the chief medical officer continues to give this advice: women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant should not drink alcohol. If they feel that they must drink it, they should drink one or two units once or twice a week, at the very most. Our advice is clear, but he makes a good point, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.

Jim Shannon: Recent NHS figures show that £2.7 billion was spent on alcohol-related illnesses. Will the Minister consider a campaign across the whole of the United Kingdom, including the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland as a region, to combat the issue of drinking during pregnancy?

Anna Soubry: That is a very good point. The overconsumption of alcohol, whether by a pregnant woman or not, greatly concerns the Government, and that is one reason we want to introduce a minimum unit price of 45p. It was a good point well made, and I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further.

Dementia

Madeleine Moon: What funding his Department has allocated to research into pre-senile dementia.

Jeremy Hunt: The National Institute for Health Research supports a wide range of research, including a number of studies of pre-senile dementias, more commonly known as early-onset dementias. This includes 85 studies recruiting patients with dementia and a further 17 in the set-up phase.

Madeleine Moon: I declare an interest.
	Dementia in the ageing population is beginning to be better understood and recognised—I appreciate the Government’s efforts on this—but there are also the frontotemporal dementias, such as Pick’s, corticobasal degeneration, Lewy body, progressive supranuclear palsy, Parkinson’s and stroke-related dementias, which are early onset. There is less understanding and awareness of these dementias. I welcome the Government’s commitment to research in this area, but we also need
	to extend understanding among nurses, general practitioners and care providers. Will the Government ensure that this wider understanding is available and extended?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in early-onset dementia. She is absolutely right: there is a widespread lack of understanding of dementia in general, and of early-onset dementia in particular. In addition to the research that I mentioned in my earlier answer, we are also looking at a major programme to engage GPs. Sadly, some GPs still think that it is not worth diagnosing someone with dementia, and there is a lack of understanding that we absolutely have to put right.

Jason McCartney: Government and charitable spending on dementia research is 12 times lower than spending on cancer research, with £590 million a year being spent on cancer research and only £50 million being invested in dementia research. What steps can we all, including the Government, take to increase the amount of investment in dementia research?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he will be pleased to learn that the Government are more than doubling the amount of money that we put into dementia research. We need to catalyse the private sector companies because although they know that the size of their potential market of people with dementia is huge, they have been frustrated in their attempts to find the breakthrough medicine that we urgently need. We need to use the research to excite their interest and keep them focused on this truly tragic disease.

Julian Sturdy: What steps his Department plans to take to improve dementia diagnosis rates and to reduce regional variations in such diagnoses.

Jeremy Hunt: There are unacceptable variations in the level of dementia diagnosis across the country, and we are committed to driving significant improvements. We have asked local areas, through the NHS mandate, to make measurable progress in improving dementia diagnosis over the next two years.

Julian Sturdy: In North Yorkshire and York, only 43% of those suffering from dementia receive a diagnosis. Given the ageing population in the county, that means that about 7,000 people with dementia remain undiagnosed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clinical commissioning groups have a large role to play in the delivery of dementia services, and will he tell us what support those groups will get?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a tragedy for those 7,000 people and their families that they are not getting a diagnosis. With a diagnosis, medicines and drugs could have a big impact and stave off the condition for between one in three and one in four people, and support services could also be put in place for carers. We need a massive transformation, and we need to make it much easier for people to get a diagnosis. We need much better understanding among GPs, as I mentioned earlier, and among hospitals as well, given that 25% of all in-patients have dementia.

Mortality Indicators

Karl McCartney: What recent discussions he has had with officials in his Department on the forthcoming NHS investigation into mortality indicators.

Daniel Poulter: Ministers have discussed the terms of reference for the review of hospitals that have been highlighted as outliers for the last two consecutive years using nationally published mortality indicators. The terms of reference were published by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh on Friday 15 February.

Karl McCartney: Just over a year ago, I asked the previous Secretary of State a question about gagging orders and the specific case of Mr Gary Walker, the former chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust. In the light of the recent news that our local health trust is now being investigated amid concerns over patient safety, what assurances can the Minister give the House that such Stalinist gagging orders, which have cost the taxpayer £15 million in the past few years, will be outlawed as soon as possible, to ensure that, under this Government, it will not take 81 requests to ensure that patient safety is paramount?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that all staff in the NHS should feel able to speak up and raise concerns about patient safety, so that the organisations for which they work can take up their concerns and investigate them. He will be aware that the people who raise such concerns are protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

Barbara Keeley: Last week I visited Salford Royal hospital, which has the lowest death and weekend mortality rates in the north-west, and the seventh lowest in the country. It is interesting to note that Salford also has higher ratios of nurses per in-patient bed, and that individual wards in the hospital publish data on their rates of MRSA, ulcers and falls. Does the Minister accept that good practice at hospitals such as Salford Royal should be investigated alongside the poor practice and high mortality rates in other hospitals?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is exactly what the review is about. It is going into the 14 hospitals in which concern has arisen over mortality data, looking at the practices there and commissioning a peer review of them from leading clinicians and patient groups. That will help to raise standards of practice where required.

Peter Tapsell: In supporting the points that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl McCartney), may I tell the Minister that, as he might expect, there is considerable anxiety among my Lincolnshire constituents over the fact that the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust has a higher than average mortality rate? Will he tell us when the promised review of the situation will begin, and who will be conducting it?

Daniel Poulter: To reassure my right hon. Friend, the review is being carried out and led by Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director. We are already well under way in implementing the review. It should be in place by the very early summer to inform Members of this House and to make improvements to patient care at the local trust level.

Ian Austin: People in Dudley were concerned to discover that higher than average mortality rates have led to Russells Hall hospital in my constituency being investigated. I have written to Sir Bruce Keogh to ask whether he or a member of his team will meet me to discuss the inquiry, so that we can find out exactly what has been going on and local people can provide information to it. How does the Minister think that things at the hospital will be improved when nurse numbers in the NHS are being reduced, waiting lists at the hospital have gone up by 177% and the NHS in Dudley has had to spend £20 million on a costly and bureaucratic reorganisation instead of on improving front-line care?

Daniel Poulter: I had thought that the hon. Gentleman had risen on a consensual note, raising his constituents’ concerns—and he was right to do that. The review is about making sure that any failings in care in local trusts are picked up and improved. The fact of the matter is that waiting times are down under this Government in comparison with the previous Government and many more additional clinical staff are working in the NHS—about 2,000 more than under the previous Government. At the same time, we have cut 18,000 administrative and management posts, and the money from that is being reinvested in front-line patient care.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) wishes to come in on this question, he may, but he is not obliged to do so.

Henry Smith: On Question 13, sir.

Mr Speaker: We will get to No. 13 in due course. Never mind.

Private Finance Initiative Hospitals

David Mowat: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of hospitals built under the private finance initiative on the work of neighbouring hospitals.

Daniel Poulter: This Government recognise that no hospital operates in isolation. We are providing seven NHS trusts that are facing difficulties as a result of PFI agreements with access to a £1.5 billion support fund to pay for extra costs accrued as a result of those damaging PFI schemes.

David Mowat: I apologise for my voice—perhaps I shall soon be interacting more directly with the NHS.
	The Warrington and Halton hospital has independent trust status. It is busy and getting busier. The previous Government built a huge PFI hospital about 10 miles away at Whiston, which does not have the patient volumes to sustain the demands of the botched PFI
	deal. It is heavily loss-making. Will the Minister provide assurance that there will be no forced merger and that my constituents will not pay for a bad decision made a decade ago?

Daniel Poulter: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to highlight the very damaging PFI scheme signed up by the previous Government for the St Helens and Knowsley NHS Trust. The percentage of annual turnover going on PFI payments at the moment is 14.2%. That is unsustainable, which is why this Government are trying to sort out the mess created by the previous Government’s signing up to too many PFI agreements.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister will be aware that support for excess PFI costs was an important element in the report of the trust special administrator in south-east London, to which the Secretary of State referred in an earlier exchange. That recommendation was widely welcomed. However, as I highlighted in questions a month ago, the Government have not accepted the financial recommendations of the trust special administrator for the capital costs and the transitional costs inherent in his recommendations. If the Government wish to proceed with these changes, will the Government agree to meet those costs as well?

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Gentleman is in dangerous territory talking about PFI schemes to which the previous Government signed up. No hospital operates in isolation. The South London Healthcare NHS Trust was paying out 13.9% of its turnover on the PFI. That was unsustainable. It has caused huge difficulties in the local health care economy and affected patient care, which was a very bad thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that this Government are providing £1.5 billion-worth of support to many trusts that have struggled under these PFI agreements—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Minister, but we have many questions to get through and the answers are sometimes just too long.

Specialist Health Services

Priti Patel: What steps his Department is taking to increase the availability to patients of GPs and specialist health services.

Norman Lamb: The Department of Health is currently working with key partners to support the increase of training numbers in general practice. From 1 April, the NHS Commissioning Board will be responsible for commissioning primary care medical services and specialised services. It will have a duty to commission those services in ways that improve quality and promote integrated care. Clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for commissioning most other services.

Priti Patel: The Minister is aware of the need to increase health care provision in Witham town. Can he reassure me that the appalling financial legacy of Mid Essex primary care trust will not hold back proposals to provide much-needed health care in the town?

Norman Lamb: I applaud my hon. Friend for repeatedly raising her constituents’ concerns about this subject. We have made it absolutely clear that primary care trusts must work closely with clinical commissioning groups to ensure that they meet the challenges of the current financial year. As for the future, the joint strategic needs assessment and the health and wellbeing boards will provide real accountability locally, and I think that my hon. Friend will be able to feed into that to ensure that her constituents are given the health services that they need.

Alison Seabeck: The Limbless Association wrote to Members of Parliament this month expressing concerns about proposals for the commissioning of extremely specialist prosthetic services, which would reduce patient choice and oblige the patient to follow the money rather than vice versa, and would damage some highly skilled professionals in the field. When did the Minister last meet representatives of the Limbless Association, and will he agree to meet them with me?

Norman Lamb: I should be happy to meet the hon. Lady and members of the association to discuss those concerns further.

Stephen Dorrell: There is currently much talk about the importance of integrated services. Can my hon. Friend assure us that when commissioning primary care, the NHS Commissioning Board will emphasise the importance of integrating it with the other community health services supplied by the NHS, and that social care will be included in that fully integrated service?

Norman Lamb: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an absolute assurance to that effect. The Department and I are working closely and collaboratively with both the Commissioning Board and the Local Government Association to ensure that we deliver integrated care, which is much the best way of keeping patients out of hospital and maintaining their condition.

Fiona Mactaggart: What is the Minister doing to ensure that there are enough GPs in areas with high, rapid population growth?

Norman Lamb: There are plans to increase the number of training places for GPs, with the aim of providing more than 3,000 extra places by 2015. That will fully meet the needs to which the hon. Lady has referred.

Premature Mortality

Henry Smith: What steps he has taken to support research on the most common causes of premature mortality.

Jeremy Hunt: We are still far too low in the European league tables for premature mortality, particularly in respect of cancer, liver disease and respiratory diseases. I have therefore made improving our performance a key priority.

Henry Smith: Can the Minister say a little more about what is being done to prevent early mortality as a result of heart disease?

Jeremy Hunt: We are investing £34 million in cardiovascular research. Much excellent work is being done at, in particular, the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, which will help us to make great strides.

John Baron: It is widely accepted that late diagnosis of cancer makes for premature mortality. Will the Government recommend the inclusion of proxy measures such as staging and accident and emergency admissions in the outcomes indicator set, as a way of complementing the one and five-year survival measures? That would give us a more complete picture of how CCGs are performing in encouraging earlier diagnosis.

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning. No sooner do we agree to the inclusion of one indicator in relation to early cancer diagnosis than he finds another that should also be included.
	I will certainly consider the issue that my hon. Friend has raised, but I think that there is a broader question about the role of GPs. They should see themselves as being in the front line when it comes to early diagnosis of not just people who walk through the doors of their surgeries, but people in their communities who are at high risk. That is a much more fundamental change that we need to think about.

Adult Mental Health Services

Paul Blomfield: What was the change in the level of spending in real terms on adult mental health services in 2011-12.

Norman Lamb: It is the responsibility of local commissioners to ensure that resources are used effectively to meet the needs of their local populations. According to the national survey of investment in adult mental health services for 2011-12, cash investment rose between 2010-11, but real-terms investment fell by 1%.

Paul Blomfield: I will meet Sheffield Mind on Friday, and one of the issues we will be talking about is the impact of that fall in spending on crisis care. Mind’s research shows that crisis care teams are often under-resourced and overstretched, with four in 10 trusts having staffing levels below the Department’s own guidelines of 14 staff to 25 service users. Does the Minister think that is acceptable, and if not, what is he going to do about it?

Norman Lamb: The Government inherited an institutional bias against mental health in the NHS. [Interruption.] It is absolutely true; when the 18-week target was introduced, nothing was available for those suffering with mental health problems. Mental health patients did not benefit from choice that was introduced elsewhere in the NHS. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of crisis services, and the first NHS mandate has required the Commissioning Board to do work on the availability of mental health services and to ensure that we can introduce access
	standards so that mental health service users and patients benefit from the same rights as those with physical health problems.

Patrick Mercer: First, may I thank you for your earlier guidance, Mr Speaker?
	May I thank the Department for its approach to the ravages to which Newark health care has been subjected, principally by the last Government, and thank the Minister for his forthcoming visit to Newark and assure him that mental health care services, which have been diminished in Newark, will certainly be top of the agenda?

Norman Lamb: The Minister who will visit Newark is, in fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) for raising this issue and for highlighting the importance of mental health care. The mandate makes it very clear that the Commissioning Board and the NHS must make measurable progress towards achieving parity of esteem by 2015.

Technology (Savings)

Alun Cairns: What recent estimate he has made of the potential savings to the NHS of making better use of technology.

Jeremy Hunt: PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that the NHS could save £4.4 billion every year through proper investment in IT, which is one of the reasons I set the NHS the challenge of becoming fully paperless by 2018.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but can he assure me that investment in new technology will release resources for patient care, rather than follow the pattern over the past 15 years, when investment in new technology has detracted from the available resources?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In encouraging such investment, we are thinking about the nurse who recently reported that in order to admit someone to trauma she had to fill out a 22-page admission form and another 10 forms after that. The whole point of this move is to free up the time of professionals on the front line so that they can spend more time with patients.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State will be aware that the general practice extraction service contract has recently been awarded to French IT firm Atos Healthcare. Given the concerns expressed by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office about the way in which Atos has performed in respect of other contracts let by the Government, what has the Secretary of State got in mind to ensure that there are safeguards for patient data under the general practice extraction service contract?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect to all IT contracts, all I will say is that we have learned a great deal from the mistakes made by the previous Government.

Topical Questions

Margaret Ritchie: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: The last month has seen the Government take two radical steps that will fundamentally improve the quality of health care in this country. First, in our response to the Francis report on the appalling tragedy at Mid Staffs, we announced the setting up of a chief inspectorate of hospitals based at the Care Quality Commission. That will introduce compassionate care, patient feedback and expert peer review into a system that has been too long dominated by targets and box-ticking. Secondly, in response to the Dilnot report, the Government announced a long-term solution to the funding of social care, which will both help thousands of low-income pensioners avoid having to sell their homes and make us one of the first countries in the world where it is as normal to save for social care costs as it is to save for a pension.

Margaret Ritchie: This week I will meet my constituents Neal and Rita Denvir, whose son, Fionn, made a miraculous recovery from meningitis. Many are not so fortunate, however, so will the Secretary of State pledge his support to the Meningitis UK “Beat it now” campaign, and include the newly licensed vaccine for meningitis B in the NHS childhood immunisation programme, so that no family has to live with the terror of that terrifying disease?

Jeremy Hunt: As the father of two young children, I completely share the hon. Lady’s passion for this issue and I am happy to give my support to Meningitis UK. The decision on whether to include a meningitis jab in the immunisation campaign is made by an independent expert panel, and I will always follow its advice.

Nick Herbert: We used to believe that tuberculosis was beaten in this country, but the number of instances of it is increasing, and there were more than 9,000 new cases last year. Does that not suggest, particularly when the incidence of drug-resistant TB is a concern, that a comprehensive public health strategy is needed to tackle the disease? What steps is the Department taking to lead that strategy?

Anna Soubry: I am grateful for that question, because my right hon. Friend has identified the fact that TB is a growing problem. We are exploring the effectiveness of an approach across health sectors for a national strategy on TB, while ensuring that we recognise the local variances. We need to improve in that area.

Andy Burnham: I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State has spent recent weeks absorbing the Francis report and its recommendations; there are lessons for everyone at every level, particularly on staffing. New analysis to be published later today will show that the NHS is set to lose 12,000 nurses over the course of this Parliament, raising doubts about its ability to respond to Robert Francis’s recommendations on staffing. Will
	the Government say today whether they accept those recommendations and the principle of a minimum staff-to-patient ratio?

Jeremy Hunt: If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Francis report carefully he would have, first, observed that the appalling tragedies covered in that report happened between 2005 and 2009, when nursing numbers were going up. So to say that this is an issue about nursing numbers is to miss the point completely. This is not an issue where there is a quick fix; it is an issue about the NHS having become dominated for far too long by a culture of targets at any cost. Unpicking that culture is the biggest challenge we face if we are to return a culture of compassionate care to the NHS.

Andy Burnham: I have read both Francis reports, and I think it is essential that everybody learns the lessons—that is what I said—including Labour Members. It is also important that we do not repeat the mistakes, and the first Francis report said that the problems were caused because the trust cut staff to dangerously low levels. The most worrying thing from the analysis that will be published today is that four in 10 of the jobs being lost come directly from services linked to the care of older people. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that there is a danger that the NHS is already failing to learn the lessons of the recent past? Will he join me in sending a message to the NHS that care of older people should be a priority for improvement, not an easy target for cuts?

Jeremy Hunt: If we are to learn the lessons of the Francis report and admit to our mistakes, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that, because we decided to protect the NHS budget, there are 8,000 more clinical staff in the NHS today, yet he still wants to cut the NHS budget from its current levels, as he confirmed only last December.

Christopher Chope: In today’s edition of the Daily Express, the Prime Minister promises to prevent immigrants freeloading on our NHS. Words are one thing, but can the Secretary of State spell out exactly what actions will be taken to deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we intend to take some profound steps in this area, because we have a national health service, not an international health service. We have to ask whether it is appropriate for us to be giving free health care to short-term visitors, to students, to people on temporary visas. We will be saying more about that issue shortly.

Paul Blomfield: On 13 March 2012, the former Secretary of State said of the Health and Social Care Bill:
	“There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that promotes or permits the transfer of NHS activities to the private sector.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 169.]
	However, the new NHS competition regulations break those promises by creating a requirement for almost all commissioning to be carried out through competitive markets, forcing privatisation through the back door,
	regardless of local will. Will the Secretary of State agree to make the regulations subject to a full debate and vote of both Houses?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my previous answer, he would have heard that the regulations are consistent with the procurement guidelines that his own Government sent out to PCTs. It is not our job to be a champion for the private sector or the NHS sector; we want to be there to do the best job for patients. That is the purpose of the regulations.

Tessa Munt: Two years ago, the Prime Minister welcomed the installation of CyberKnife, the latest in cancer radio surgery equipment at the world-leading Royal Marsden cancer centre, as an example of how the NHS has progressed. Since then, the Royal Marsden has invited successive Health Ministers to visit the cancer centre but no one has accepted the invitation, and I am aware that Ministers have been to see other cancer treatment systems. Will the Secretary of State follow the Prime Minister’s lead and visit the Royal Marsden to see for himself the great progress that has been made there?

Anna Soubry: I understand that the Secretary of State has been to the Royal Marsden, but I am more than happy to accept the invitation and look forward to going along and seeing it for myself.

Graeme Morrice: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to prevent the fragmenting of the national health service through a massive reorganisation that is costing £3 billion, diverting much-needed resources away from the front line?

Norman Lamb: The truth is that the Government inherited a completely fragmented NHS; we had managed institutionally to separate health care from social care, mental health from physical health and primary care from secondary care. At the heart of the legislation we have already passed and the proposed social care legislation, which we hope to introduce very soon, is the principle of integrated care. I am determined that that should be central in every area of the country so that we deliver proper care and avoid crises, keeping people out of hospital.

Adrian Sanders: The South Devon and Torbay clinical commissioning group is building on the integrated health and social care system for which many have praised the area. Will the Minister help complete the integration by assisting with the inclusion of mental health care services within the regime?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and applaud the brilliant work that has been done in Torbay. There has been a reduction in hospital admissions because they care for people better. As I said in my last answer, it is essential that we integrate mental health in the system as well as physical health so that we give people proper care.

Nick Smith: On performance data, what plans does the Minister have to expand the friends and family test so that it provides the reasons for patients’ views and real-time feedback on their experience of services?

Daniel Poulter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The friends and family test will give real-time feedback about patient services, but we need to ensure that the data from the test are used effectively by local trusts and scrutinised by the Care Quality Commission and other organisations so that they can go in if there are problems to ensure that they stand up for the rights of patients.

Alun Cairns: Kevin Davies, a constituent from Cowbridge, visited my surgery yesterday. He is a prostate cancer patient and robotic surgery was deemed to be the most appropriate form of care. Unfortunately, robotic surgery for prostate cancer is not available in Wales and he was forced to travel to Bristol and pay £15,000 for the treatment. Will my hon. Friend agree to work with the Welsh NHS either to come up with a formal agreement whereby facilities are available to Welsh NHS patients or to press it to invest in its own facilities?

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend makes a good point: in England, the NHS is benefiting from not suffering a cut in funding such as that imposed by the Labour Administration in Wales.

Helen Jones: The Prime Minister promised a fight to save district general hospitals, yet the Secretary of State’s recent decision on Lewisham suggests something completely different. Will the Secretary of State therefore give the House an assurance that the north Cheshire hospitals trust will not be forced into a merger or to downgrade its services because of financial problems elsewhere?

Daniel Poulter: I know that the hon. Lady had tabled a question on this matter. The point is that a foundation trust has autonomy and cannot be coerced or forced into a merger. It is for the board of that trust to make decisions for the benefit of patients.

Therese Coffey: Patients in Suffolk are very worried about the performance of the ambulance service. In the past two months, less than 60% of ambulances have hit the target for reaching emergency cases. The strategic health authority and others, including all the MPs in the region, are not happy about that. Will the Government intervene, too?

Anna Soubry: With two Ministers in the Department from the east of England, I can assure my hon. Friend that all of us are aware of the concerns that she and other Members have about their ambulance trust and, if I may say so as an east midlands MP, about the East Midlands ambulance trust. I know that Earl Howe, who has responsibility overall, has offered a meeting with Members from the east of England, and I am sure that that meeting will produce the sort of benefits that everyone hopes for.

Andy Slaughter: Last week’s decision to close four north-west London A and Es, including Charing Cross and Hammersmith in my constituency, will shortly be on the Secretary of State’s desk, as he predicts. It was referred by Labour Ealing council because Tory Hammersmith and Fulham council supports the closures. Will the Secretary of State refer the matter for independent review? This is the biggest hospital closure programme in the history of the NHS. It will see a world-class hospital downgraded to 3% of its size.

Jeremy Hunt: I am aware how concerned people are throughout north-west London about the proposals. If the matter is referred to me by Ealing council, I will indeed ask the independent reconfiguration panel for its independent view on the proposals.

John Baron: The cancer drugs fund has been a huge success and has helped up to 25,000 patients, but the negotiations between the Government and the pharmaceutical companies on its replacement—value-based pricing—is causing real uncertainty for cancer patients and clinicians alike. For example, will new medicines be available to new patients under the new system and what guidance is being given to local cancer drugs funds as they wind down? Can we please have clarity urgently?

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman was seeking an Adjournment debate and is disguising his request as a question, for which we are grateful.

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am happy to discuss it further with him. Value-based pricing will be primarily for new drugs, but obviously I understand his concern. It is the concern of the Government to ensure good access to cancer drugs for patients in the future.

Kerry McCarthy: Recent comprehensive research by the international study of asthma and allergies in childhood found strong evidence of a link between fast food and asthma, but when I asked the Minister which public health responsibility deal partners he had discussed that with, he said that evaluating science was not within their remit. Does he agree that if the fast food companies have the kudos of being classed as public health responsibility deal partners, they ought to look into such research and actually take some responsibility?

Anna Soubry: Those are good points well made, if I may say so. I am more than happy to discuss that further with the hon. Lady, because I take the firm view
	that everyone involved in making, manufacturing, supplying and selling food has a responsibility to make sure that all of us have longer, healthier, happier lives. I am all for ratcheting up the responsibility deal.

David Tredinnick: May I alert my right hon. and hon. Friends to the recently published road map for complementary and alternative medicine in Europe, which cost the European Commission £1.5 million? Will they look at it carefully to see where services can be extended in our own national health service?

Daniel Poulter: I assure my hon. Friend that we will look carefully at anything that he wants to put forward, but any treatment on the NHS needs, of course, to be evidence-based.

Helen Goodman: Every year 18,000 epileptic fits are triggered by video games and screen-based activity. Can the ministerial team tell us what research is being done on that and what discussions they have had with the industry to make video games safer and improve the labelling?

Norman Lamb: I would be happy to look into that further. I recognise the significant concern that she raises. Often the diagnosis of epilepsy is not good enough and there needs to be much better co-ordinated care. The issue that she raises is important and I am happy to look into it further.

Andrew George: In spite of my right hon. Friend’s earlier comments, I am afraid that the regulation that implements section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 does not maintain the assurances previously given and risks creating an NHS that is driven more by private pocket than concern for patient care. Will the Secretary of State please withdraw that regulation and take it back to the drawing board?

Norman Lamb: We are looking at this extremely seriously. Clear assurances were given in the other place during the passage of the legislation, and it is important that they are complied with in the regulations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We now come to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of letting agents; to protect tenants’ deposits; to require the enforcement of environmental and energy-efficiency standards in private-sector rented accommodation; to amend the law on secure tenancies; to provide for fair rent to be applicable to all rented accommodation; to require landlords not to discriminate against people in receipt of state benefits; to require local authorities to establish a private rented sector office; and for connected purposes.
	Parliament has a responsibility to look seriously at the issues facing people who live in the private rented sector. For a long time, the sector has been ignored. Tenant protection was removed in the 1980s by the Housing Act 1988 and, at that time, the private rented sector was quite small. Indeed, in 2001, only 7% of people lived in the private rented sector. By 2011, this had risen to 17%, and by 2025 it will be 22 % of the population. In inner-city areas such as the one I represent, a third of people now live in private rented accommodation.
	Private rented accommodation is very expensive, but when I questioned the Prime Minister on this subject he told me that the problem was that housing benefit costs in London had risen to £6 billion. The reason they have risen is because of the number of people placed in private rented accommodation by local authorities, which are fulfilling their statutory housing duties and have no control over rent levels. In return, the Government have now capped housing benefits at a very low level—given the effective rents charged—and the universal cap will cause even greater problems when it is introduced. Members who represent central London constituencies are already witnessing a massive depopulation of our communities as private sector tenants placed there by the local authority are having their benefit limited and they cannot afford to pay the difference between their benefits and the rent charged. Constituents come to me who have a difference of £100 and more between their benefit level and the rent level, which can be stupendous.
	It is high time that Parliament looked at the situation facing people in the private rented sector and introduced thorough and comprehensive regulation. That is why I have introduced the Bill. To prepare for the Bill I have organised two public meetings in my constituency and invited private sector tenants to come along and tell me of their experiences. To put it mildly, those experiences are difficult to comprehend at times because of the sheer nastiness of some landlords towards some tenants. I am not saying that every private sector landlord is a bad person, or that they all go into the business with evil intent, but the lack of regulation means that many people suffer appalling treatment at the hands of this market. That is why we have to look at it.
	Letting agencies are unregulated. They charge a search fee, which in some cases can run into several hundred pounds, but the search consists of no more than checking through a computer database to see whether they have any properties for that person. It is an unregulated area and it needs to be thoroughly regulated so that all those purporting to operate in the private rented sector can be
	registered and we know who they are. Deposits are often not returned, and if the landlord or letting agency is legally challenged they say that it was in fact rent in advance and therefore not liable to be returned. Excessively difficult questions are put concerning very minor changes that may have been made to a flat by someone living there.
	If someone living in private rented accommodation complains to the local authority about the poor standards, the lack of repair, the lack of insulation or the sheer refusal of the landlord to engage with the tenant, they may be rapidly evicted. They then have no real redress in law to prevent that eviction, because the majority of private rented sector tenants are on assured shorthold tenancies lasting only six months. There is a real problem.
	A group of tenants currently based in Hackney, although I expect similar groups to spread across London, have made an excellent submission to the Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into the private rented sector. Their proposals include secure five-year tenancies, a requirement for landlords to provide a valid reason for ending a tenancy, a public register of all landlords paid for from the Land Registry, a requirement for decent homes standards to apply to all rented accommodation—not just council and housing association homes, but the private rented sector as well—and full vetting of private landlords before they let homes, including criminal record checks, tax records and previous warning letters from councils. It is time we went ahead with these proposals.
	My Bill envisages tenant protection and five-year tenancies with a break clause for the tenant so that they can leave ahead of that time if they need to move away, have a job somewhere else or no longer wish to live in that area. Also, the Bill provides for the enforcement of all environmental standards, crucially including energy efficiency standards because the private rented sector tends to cost more and not just in rent levels, which are often horrendous—roughly three to four times what the local authority charges for similar properties in the same area. In addition, the Bill would protect tenants by ensuring that repairs are done and that if the landlord refuses to do them, that does not become a basis for eviction.
	My Bill provides for non-discrimination. If someone walked along any high street anywhere in London, and probably anywhere in the country, and looked into a letting agency, they would see a sign saying, “No benefits here.” In other words, anyone in receipt of a state benefit is not allowed to apply for a private rented flat from that agent. That seems blatant discrimination against a very large number of people and ought to be outlawed. The crucial point for me is that we should return to rent regulation by a process of fair rents set by local rent tribunals. That would bring about a sense of fairness in the system, not the excessive and ludicrous profit-taking by a number of often very small landlords.
	In order to implement the Bill, I would require the Secretary of State to consult within six months of the Bill becoming law on a formula for fair rents. Every local authority would be required to set up a local authority office to monitor all law that relates to the private rented sector, to ensure the return of deposits and to ensure that repairs are carried out in a decent and timely manner and that people can live in security and decency.
	There are some good landlords in this country who have nothing to fear from this regulation. Indeed, some groups of landlords have been in touch with me to say that they would welcome such legislation because it would provide a sense of fairness. But there are many very bad landlords and many people who make ludicrously excessive profits from private sector rentals. I have come across a case in my constituency where someone who was able to buy a council flat under right to buy some years ago at a very heavy discount is now letting the flat at £600 per week. That is enough for that person to live on, from a flat that they were able to buy. This could be replicated all over the country in different situations.
	The previous Housing Minister once told me that he thought rent regulation was a very bad idea because it would damage the property market and that was the fundamental driver of economic success in this country, but other countries manage to regulate the private rented sector. Germany, for example, has full regulation, with virtually permanent tenancies and a very good standard of accommodation to go with it. New York, which last time I looked was pretty much a free market capitalist economy in every other way, has a degree of rent regulation.
	We need to provide security, decency and reliable landlords for those people who are unable to buy and unable to access local authority or housing association accommodation. The time is well past for us to legislate to look after a quarter of our population who are living in the private rented sector. I hope the House will support the Bill and give me leave to introduce it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan, Sir Bob Russell, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Caroline Lucas, John Healey, John McDonnell, Katy Clark, Grahame M. Morris, Paul Goggins, Mr David Lammy and Mr David Ward present the Bill.
	Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April and to be printed (Bill 140).

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

Jo Swinson: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 19 November 2012 (Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme)), be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	I hope that this will be the second day in a row when I can speak to a Bill on which there is broad agreement across the House. The programme motion allocates three hours for debate before we move on to Third Reading, which we think will allow us plenty of time to consider any issues that might be raised on what is—let us remember—quite a narrow and tightly focused piece of legislation, and one that enjoys considerable cross-party support.

Peter Bone: I am always worried when a Minister starts by saying that Front Benchers and the usual channels have agreed on a Bill, because that means the legislation is almost certainly wrong. My specific point is that we had a programme motion that we agreed after Second Reading, so why is it being overruled? Why are we shortening scrutiny when the House and Parliament thought that we would have a whole day for it?

Jo Swinson: I gently point out to my hon. Friend that I did not say that this was something the usual channels were all okay with; I said that there has been a great deal of positivity across the House for the content of the Bill itself. It follows on from previous private Members’ Bills, and on Second Reading and in Committee it was generally welcomed by a large number of Members.
	We believe that the programme motion allows sufficient time for scrutiny, because we rigorously tested the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. Indeed, what we did not know when we passed the original programme motion was that consideration in Committee would finish early, so it was well scrutinised and the time that had been allocated was significantly more than ample.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Jo Swinson: I will give way to one of the members of that fine Committee.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I concur with the Minister that all members of the Committee were fine members. Perhaps I can help to answer question asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). One reason the Committee got through the Bill faster than anticipated, which we hope we might do again today, was the Government’s fantastic decision to change their mind and include in the Bill the power to impose financial penalties, which saved a lot of time and might also help us today.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Of course, the House is delighted that he, too, has received adequate recognition for his role in bringing that about. I believe that he was the Total Politics MP of the month because of his campaigning, which is obviously a great accolade—I understand that he collects those, as he was once given an award for being the sexiest MP of the year in Wales. He makes the important point that the Government have been in listening mode, and one of the main issues that various Members expressed concern about on Second Reading was that of fines. We have listened to that, and it was obviously discussed further in Committee.
	In that context, I think that three hours will be sufficient to debate the amendments. I hope that I can provide my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and others with that reassurance. On that basis, I commend the programme motion to the House.

Ian Murray: I do not have much to add to the Minister’s opening speech. Labour Members agree with the programme motion for the simple reason that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—the Total Politics Member of the month—said, most of the discussion on Second Reading focused on fines. As the Minister said, the Government listened on that issue, although “caved in” is probably more like it, and decided to include fines in the Bill, under extreme pressure not only from Labour Members but from many organisations and, indeed, from some of her hon. Friends. Had I known that the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) had tabled so many amendments, we might have asked for more time through the usual channels. However, given that we are where we are and that we are relatively happy and content with what came out of Committee, we will support the programme motion.

Christopher Chope: I am always suspicious when a deal is done between the usual channels, and that is what has happened in this case. The Minister said that she thinks it reasonable that there is less time to debate the Bill on Report than was originally intended on 19 November because we do not need more than three hours to scrutinise it. That is very paternalistic. She then argued that because the Committee spent less time discussing the Bill than it might have done, we need less time to discuss it on Report. Surely the reason we need more time on Report is that only then do Members who were not members of the Committee that considered the Bill in detail have a chance to participate in the debate and to table amendments.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Does he agree that there is bound to be no proper scrutiny in Committee because the Government pack it with people who agree with them—supporters of the Bill whom they want to be there?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. I am not aware of anybody on the Committee feeling that the Bill was too strong and should be weakened; the only people there either supported it or wanted it to be strengthened.
	That shows how unrepresentative the Committee was. We now have three groups of amendments and only three hours in which to debate them, after deducting such time as we will spend on considering this programme motion.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem arises because the Executive decide on the time for debate? Within just a couple of months, the Government are going to bring forward proposals for a House business Committee. Will that not solve the problem?

Christopher Chope: Thereby hangs a subject for a separate debate. The coalition agreement contained a commitment to have a House business Committee by the third year of this Parliament. We now know that that is being interpreted as meaning the end of December 2013, which is rather an extension of the use of the English language. However, that may be the subject of another debate on another occasion. As my hon. Friend suggests, this shows, in essence, that Front Benchers are not to be trusted on these issues, and until they prove their point and we are satisfied, we will be suspicious.

Mark Spencer: As a member of the Committee that my hon. Friend criticises, it is difficult not to take offence. Surely he must recognise that the debate that he is forcing now will reduce the amount of time that we have to scrutinise the Bill, and surely the quicker we can get on to that debate the better off we will be.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend scores a bit of an own goal. If we had had the original programme motion, we would have been able to continue the debate until 7 pm. If, as I imagine, he will support this programme motion, he will be supporting a curtailment of the debate.

Peter Bone: An outrageous slur has been made on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has made it clear that he wants more time for debate. The simple answer is that when the House divides on this programme motion and we defeat it, the previous programme, which gave us a whole day for debate, will be in place. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) should apologise to my hon. Friend.

Christopher Chope: I do not expect hon. Members to apologise to me. I think actions speak louder than words on these issues.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend said that there would be only an hour to debate each of the three groups of amendments because there are three hours and three groups. He was being overly generous, because any Divisions will eat further into that time, so there may be only a maximum of 45 minutes for each group.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right.
	I am going to finish soon because other people want to participate in this very short debate. Before I do so, let me point out that the Minister says that one of the justifications for curtailing the amount of time to debate the Bill on Report is that the Committee changed the Bill to introduce an ability for the adjudicator to fine without that having to be the subject of regulations in
	future. That is a fundamental change to the Bill. I would have thought that that is an argument for having more, not less, discussion on Report.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman stated that actions speak louder than words. Will he point to where he or the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised issues of contention during the Second Reading debate, which surely would have been the opportunity to telegraph to Front Benchers the fact that there were such issues that needed more time for debate at this stage?

Christopher Chope: I do not think that Front Benchers needed any telegraph messages from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) or me, because one of the precursors to this Bill was a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament that my hon. Friend fought against line by line, in which I joined and supported him. The Bill before us is one that several colleagues and I are still very concerned about. The fact that I did not speak on Second Reading is not an argument that can be used against me, because now we have the chance to consider amendments, whereas on Second Reading we would only have been able to flag up general concerns, and I did not think that necessary because I had done so previously.

Stephen McCabe: rose—

Christopher Chope: I will give way once more and then I must finish.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to prolong this debate on the programme motion. Is it not fair to say that at the time of Second Reading the country was not engulfed in the anxiety about the food chain that has arisen subsequently, and that it would be a disaster if there were not enough time to debate at least amendments 34 and 35, which cover matters that are on the public’s mind?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The amendments in the first group include two new clauses in my name, which have been driven by the fact that this issue concerns more than just the United Kingdom. We are talking about a very complicated global supply chain, and we need further explanation on how the Bill will impact on that.
	I have severe reservations about changing the programme motion. It is indicative of the fact that this Government are lacking in self-confidence. Why do they not have the self-confidence to allow us to debate these issues for a whole day on Report, as they originally intended? Why do they wish to close down debate? Are they frightened of scrutiny?

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).
	I want to query a couple of things that my hon. Friend the Minister said. She is a first-class Minister, and I think that had she been a shadow Minister, she would have been arguing for more scrutiny. I notice that she has now been left alone on the Front Bench with
	just one Whip, which seems to indicate that nobody in Government wants to be associated with this programme motion. When the Deputy Leader of the House sat on the Opposition Benches, he was a fine proponent of opposing programme motions, and it must be very sad for him to have to take this line today.
	There is an intellectual flaw in the Minister’s argument. If she is saying that this is not controversial and that three hours gives us plenty of time for debate, why bring in another programme motion, because the debate will automatically finish within three hours anyway? The centralist, Stalinist approach of this Executive is such that they want to be wedded to programme motions.
	I know that that is not the Prime Minister’s view, because in his excellent speech, “Fixing Broken Politics”, which he made in May 2009—I am sure that every Member has read it—he roundly criticised programme motions and said that they reduced scrutiny. Basically, a Bill is thought up in Downing street, pushed through its Second Reading and then goes to a Committee that is stuffed full of Members who support it. There is no way of getting on a Committee unless the Whips support the decision. Then, when the Bill comes back to the Chamber to be considered, Back-Bench Members who are interested in it but who could not get on the Committee do not have enough time to make amendments or discuss it. I guarantee that that is exactly what will happen today if the programme motion goes through. Amendments will not be reached and they will not be discussed, and that, of course, is fundamentally what the Government want. They do not want scrutiny of this Bill. Such a situation occurs when Members on both Front Benches are in league together. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), has let slip that he is happy with the programme motion and that the usual channels have agreed to it.

Mark Spencer: How does my hon. Friend square that argument with the fact that every single Government member of the Committee criticised the Bill on Second Reading?

Peter Bone: I hate to criticise the Whips Office, but it was clearly not doing its job properly when it let hon. Members such as my hon. Friend—serious parliamentarians who want to scrutinise the Bill—slip through.

Philip Davies: I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) was trying to say was that every Government member of the Committee was critical of the Bill because it did not go far enough and they wanted it to be strengthened. In effect, that is what the Government wanted them to say, because they could then say, “We’ve had so much pressure put on us that we’ve had to strengthen the Bill.” Those Government Members were put on the Committee not to be unhelpful, but to be as helpful as possible.

Peter Bone: I am afraid that that rings true. On occasion, I myself have been asked to do things on behalf of the Whips and I am afraid that sometimes I have succumbed and made noises that appeared to be contrary to the Government’s views but that turned out to be what they thought all along. The European Union Act 2011 is a fine example of that.
	I want to make a brief point of principle. The problem with the timing results from the fact that the programming of Parliament is controlled entirely by the Executive. Parliament has already agreed to a timetable motion, which in my opinion it did not need to do. It does not need programme motions; we should be able to scrutinise Bills for the time that Parliament thinks necessary. The programme motion, which went through on Second Reading, gave a whole day to consider the Bill and give it its Third Reading. That is what we should be doing today. The only reason why the debate is being restricted—again, the shadow Minister let this slip out—is that amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch. The Government are trying to restrict scrutiny.
	The Deputy Leader of the House is back in his place—

Philip Davies: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is not the Deputy Leader of the House— he is a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now

Peter Bone: Oh, sorry. Good God! I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister. I now understand entirely why he has to be here—had he been Deputy Leader of the House, he would not have been present. I understand that he is now part of the great Government machine and that when someone on a sofa in Downing street decides something, it has to be forced through. I apologise for misunderstanding why he is sitting on the Front Bench today.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is a very good Minister and she is doing a fine job, but if she believes her own arguments that the
	Bill is uncontroversial and that three hours is enough to debate it, why not withdraw the programme motion and let the House take its own course? She would then be a star of Parliament—she already is a star, but she would be an even greater star—and that would show the public that the Government are not afraid of scrutiny.

Ian Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the quickest way to get through this afternoon’s business would be for the Minister to agree with all our amendments? We could then move on to the other debates.

Peter Bone: No. That is exactly the wrong reason. We want to discuss the issues and argue about them. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments might be very good and when I listen to the debate I might support them, but alas we might not get to many of them, because of the restriction of time. Clearly, there is disagreement in the House. Would it not just be easier to withdraw this programme motion and go back to the previous one, which went through, I think, without dissent? I had hoped that the Minister would agree to that, but we will now have to see whether the House will divide on this programme motion.
	This is another case of the Executive doing what they want at the expense of Parliament. It is a shame on this Government. It is not what I expected when the new Government came to power. What they promised beforehand with regard to parliamentary scrutiny has not come to pass. The sooner we get a business of the House Committee to run Parliament, this place will be far better.

Mr Speaker: Does the Minister wish to respond? She is not obliged to.

Jo Swinson: indicated dissent.
	Question agreed to.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Exception for suppliers with high turnover

‘Suppliers are not allowed to refer cases to the Adjudicator and cannot have cases referred on their behalf if their turnover exceeds £500 million per annum.’.—(Philip Davies.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Supplier turnover—
	‘Suppliers are not allowed to refer cases to the Adjudicator and cannot have cases referred on their behalf if their turnover exceeds £1bn per annum.’.
	New clause 3—Sunsetting—
	‘This Bill will expire in seven years from the date it receives Royal Assent.’.
	New clause 4—Supplier headquarters—
	‘Suppliers are not allowed to refer cases to the Adjudicator and cannot have cases referred on their behalf if they have their principal headquarters outside the European Union.’.
	New clause 5—Supply source—
	‘The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any supplies which are produced, manufactured or processed, in whole or in part, outside the European Union.’.
	Amendment 28, in clause 12,page4,line32, at end insert—
	‘(a) the nature and type of arbitrations to be conducted under section 3 including:
	(i) the law applicable to an arbitration; and
	(ii) where the arbitration should be conducted.’.
	Amendment 3,in clause 13, page5,line18, at end insert—
	‘(2) The Office of Fair Trading shall be required to publish a response to the Adjudicator on the recommendations set out in subsection (1) explaining whether they will be acted upon or not.’.
	Amendment 30,page5,line18, at end add—
	‘(3) In assessing changes that could be made to the Code, the Adjudicator shall give due consideration to—
	(a) the territorial extent of the Code, especially in relation to activities of large retailers outwith the UK, including work done by subsidiaries of large retailers;
	(b) whether intermediaries in the supply chain should be covered; and
	(c) whether commercial pressures or criminal activity pose risks to consumer interests by potentially compromising standards of food safety, hygiene and food authenticity.’.
	Amendment 33,page5,line18, at end add—
	‘(3) In assessing changes that could be made to the Code, the Adjudicator shall give due consideration to—
	(a) the territorial extent of the Code, especially in relation to activities of large retailers outwith the UK, including work done by subsidiaries of large retailers;
	(b) whether intermediaries in the supply chain should be covered.’.
	Amendment 34,in clause 14, page5,line31, at end insert—
	‘(4A) The report must include details of any incidents that have come to the Adjudicator’s attention during the reporting period in which breaches of the Groceries Code or commercial pressure on retailers have led or may have led to actual or potential cases of compromised—
	(a) food safety;
	(b) food hygiene; and
	(c) food authenticity.’.
	Amendment 35, page5,line34, at end add—
	‘(c) the Food Standards Agency.’.
	Amendment 27,in cause 25, page11, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert
	‘This Act shall come into force two months after Royal Assent.’.

Philip Davies: New clause 1 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall).
	I do not want you to think, Mr Speaker, that my speech would be better suited to a debate on Second or Third Reading, but it is important that I give some context as to why new clauses 1, 2 and 3—which all stand in my name—are important.
	I do not have any interest to declare, but I do have considerable experience that is relevant to the Bill. Before entering Parliament in 2005 I spent the previous 12 years working for Asda. I spent four years working in-store and eight years working at the head office in Leeds, so I have first-hand knowledge of how the supermarket industry works. To be perfectly honest, it works in a completely different way from they way in which people might be forgiven for thinking it works if they listened to previous debates on the matter. We have been given to believe that terrible, shocking, awful, nasty supermarkets care nothing about their suppliers, that their only role in life is to screw their suppliers into the ground and leave them destitute—bankrupt, if we are to believe previous debates—and that the only way to prevent that from happening is to have this ridiculous adjudicator, which is the Bill’s premise. That argument is complete and utter nonsense—that is not how it works at all.

Mark Tami: I think that I have raised this point with the hon. Gentleman in the past, but the supermarkets’ power means that they are able to tell suppliers, “Provide this product at this price or do two-for-one offers at your cost, or we will go somewhere else.” Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that is an unacceptable power in some cases?

Philip Davies: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is highlighting the misconceptions. The Office of Fair Trading is already able to enforce a grocery code of practice. It is already in place. It is not being introduced by this Bill. The code of practice already exists under the auspices of the OFT. If the hon. Gentleman has any concerns about how supermarkets are operating with regard to their suppliers, he can take his complaint to the OFT and ask it to investigate it. The adjudicator is not supposed to introduce a new code of practice, although we fear that they might. The code of practice already exists. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of supermarkets breaking the code of practice, I would be happy for him to come forward and tell me about it.
	If anybody has evidence of supermarkets breaking the code of practice, let us hear about it today and we can all decide what the best course of action is. However, there is no evidence that the code of practice is being breached.

Huw Irranca-Davies: With all due respect, the hon. Gentleman fails to understand one of the fundamental points that was made in Committee, which is that many of the examples of abuse in the supply chain concern primary producers who are literally afraid of coming forward. That is why the anonymity and protection of those producers is built into the Bill.

Philip Davies: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is basically highlighting that he can give no examples of abuses of the groceries code of practice.

Andrew George: I respect the consistent position that the hon. Gentleman takes on this matter. However, he cannot ignore the fact that in 2008, the Competition Commission concluded that supermarkets were transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to suppliers, and that that was having a detrimental effect not only on the suppliers, but on consumers. It proposed the introduction of the code, but made it clear that on its own, the code would not be sufficient. A referee was needed to enforce it, otherwise no complaints would be brought forward. Simply saying that we have to find the evidence ignores the Competition Commission’s conclusions.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman, likewise, has taken a consistent view on these matters. In fact, he has been so consistent that he wanted an adjudicator before a new code of practice had even been introduced, let alone bedded down. He has always been in favour of this solution, even when there was no problem.
	The Office of Fair Trading controls the groceries code of practice and is there to investigate any abuses of fair trade within the sector. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, he can take it to the Office of Fair Trading. It has all the powers that it needs to investigate any cases. The problem is that there are no such examples.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The Grocery Market Action Group, which I am privileged to chair on behalf of a large number of organisations, gave evidence to the Competition Commission inquiry. That is one reason why it came forward with the clear and firm conclusions that are now being carried forward by the Government. That is the right thing to do.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman keeps making the same assertion. He should take the matter to the Office of Fair Trading. That is the body that oversees the groceries code of practice.

Andrew Turner: I am going to talk about something completely different. The Isle of Wight has three locations where ferries land. It was found that the ferry companies were not being reasonable. They could not find a solution and neither could anybody
	else. Exactly the same thing that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is describing with food is happening with ferries.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is a fantastic representative of the people of the Isle of Wight. However, I would not want you to tell me that I am going off course, Mr Speaker, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will avoid the ferry analogy and stick to the adjudicator and the groceries code.
	Let me get to the point that I have been trying to make from the beginning. It is amazing that all the people who would have been happy to vote for the Government’s programme motion to restrict the debate are anxious to intervene as often as possible on my speech, thereby prolonging the debate. I am sure that there an irony in there somewhere.
	The genesis of my new clauses is that the idea that supermarkets will flourish by making their suppliers bankrupt is the most ridiculous premise known to man. A supplier does not have much of an outlet for their goods if they are not bought by a supermarket. Equally, a supermarket does not have much of a shop if it has nothing on its shelves to sell. This is not a one-way street. The supermarket cannot manage without the supplier. The nature of the free market means that they have to work together on each other’s terms. If a supermarket upsets Heinz and has no Heinz beans on its shelves, it will not be a supermarket for very long.

Eilidh Whiteford: The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the markets in which the supermarkets operate, but does he at least concede that the power imbalance between the supermarket and the supplier is often very unfair, and that supermarkets have consistently pushed the costs and risks of doing business on to the supplier at the end of the food chain?

Philip Davies: No, I do not agree with that at all. I will come on to this point in a bit more detail soon, but the hon. Lady is forgetting something. The big supermarkets, without a shadow of a doubt, are massive companies that have hundreds of stores in their chains. By definition, a viable supplier to a supermarket chain has to be a very big company as well, otherwise it would not have the wherewithal to supply all the supermarket’s branches. When I get to the detail of my new clauses, I will talk about the thresholds that the Bill should apply. She will see that far from it being the case that vast supermarkets are being awful to very small suppliers, many of the suppliers are bigger than the supermarkets that they are supplying. She ought to bear that in mind.

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend misunderstands the whole supply chain in the UK. There are organisations that provide hubs to supply supermarkets, but those hubs are supplied by very small primary producers such as family firms. Those firms are microscopic in comparison with the supermarkets.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If he has a big problem with the middleman, so to speak, for example in the dairy industry, he should pursue his complaint with the middleman, rather than having a go at the supermarket.
	The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) made a point about special offers. There is a view that supermarkets have been forcing suppliers against their will to do special offers, such as buy one, get one free or buy three for two. Let me tell the House, as somebody who has worked in this environment, what happens in the real world, rather than in the invented world that people want to talk about.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) is here and he will know what happens as well as I do because he worked for Asda at the same time as I did. He will recall that, before I left, Asda decided that it did not want to do special offers any more and that it would have no special offers in its stores. It did not want any buy one, get one frees or three for twos. It asked its suppliers instead to just sell it the product at an everyday low price and to put what they would have invested in a promotion into providing that price. It was not companies such as Asda that were forcing suppliers to do buy one, get one frees; suppliers were falling over themselves to do special offers in the supermarkets and to get their products in the promotional areas.
	Some of those firms have massive marketing budgets. They have marketing budgets that supermarkets would love to have. They use that budget to do offers such as buy one get one free or three for the price of two. They are trying to persuade people who buy Daz for their washing, for example, to move to Persil. To persuade people to do so, they give them a buy-one-get-one-free offer.

Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I will in a second, because it was the hon. Gentleman who started me off in discussing this misconception in the first place, so I will happily let him come back in.
	A special offer such as “Buy one, get one free” on Persil is intended to encourage people to buy Persil in the hope that by the time the special offer ends, they will stick to that brand. It is a way of promoting a brand, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the supermarket.

Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman is talking about very large companies, but does he accept that some smaller companies are almost totally reliant on the supermarkets for their business, and whatever the supermarket says goes? Does he also accept that one thing that we have to recognise from the horsemeat scandal is that if we keep driving prices down, some suppliers will look to cut costs by whatever means they can in order to survive?

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he seems to have indicated—I will take it as such—that he will support my new clause 1 or new clause 2. He gets to the nub of the point, although I suspect he has not even bothered to read the new clauses, because if he had he would not have led with his chin in the way that he just has.
	I wish to make it clear at this point that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would prefer to press new clause 2 to a Division than new clause 1, but I will be guided by you later on that.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has been exceptionally generous throughout his speech.
	I have been looking at new clauses 1 and 2, and they seem to be the same except for the level of turnover specified in them. Is that the case, and will my hon. Friend go into some detail on that?

Philip Davies: As ever, my hon. Friend is eagle-eyed. The amendments are the same, but the purpose of tabling two was to give the House a choice, because as it happened, I envisaged the interventions that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has made.
	At Asda, we found huge reluctance on the part of suppliers to stop special offers. They lobbied Asda for ever to do more and more of them to promote their brands, and an everyday low price did not offer them the same marketing opportunity.

Mark Spencer: I applaud my hon. Friend’s campaign to get his whites whiter, but he must recognise that there is a fundamental difference between a supplier of a brand of washing powder and a supplier of a cauliflower, carrot or parsnip, because it is not possible to brand a carrot or a cauliflower.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and again, I take his intervention as a signal that he will support my amendment. That brings us on to the nub—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman for any length of time, still less to be discourteous to him, but above all I would not want the House to be inadvertently misled. He has no amendments in this group, but he does have a series of new clauses tabled, if memory serves me, in his name and that of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), namely new clauses 1 to 3, on which I know the House will now focus with beady eyes.

Philip Davies: I am grateful, Mr Speaker, and you are absolutely right, as ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) seems to indicate that he is prepared to support new clauses 1 and 2, and I will be grateful to him for that. It seems that the longer we go on, the more support I am garnering for my case, so I am encouraged to go on a bit longer.

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend will recognise that putting a figure on turnover as suggested in the new clauses would mean that there was a difference between somebody supplying a low-value product such as a carrot and somebody supplying a high-value product such as a bottle of champagne. If we were to put a firm figure in the Bill, as time and inflation moved inevitably forward, that figure would become smaller and smaller in real terms and small and medium-sized enterprises would be dragged over the threshold.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend appears to be indicating that he prefers new clause 2 to new clause 1, which further persuades me that I should seek to press new clause 2 to a Division, if you allow me to do so, Mr Speaker.
	The Bill was sold to people on the back of what I believe was a false premise—the idea that supermarkets are screwing suppliers into the ground remorselessly and hoping that as many of them as possible will go bust. It is a completely nonsensical argument.

Justin Tomlinson: On the evidence of what has happened so far, has the current groceries code been well utilised since its introduction?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend asks a good question and strikes at the heart of why the Bill is a nonsense. There is no evidence that the groceries code is being abused. Nobody has yet been able to come forward with any such case. They all give reasons why they cannot do so, but the fact remains that there are none. There is no evidence that the code is not being applied properly.

Andrew George: As the competition authorities have repeatedly found, there is a significant climate of fear in the sector. That is why it is highly unlikely that anyone will use the code until the adjudicator is in place. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at clauses 4, 10 and 12 in particular, which should give him the reassurance that I believe he is looking for. Potentially powerful suppliers will not abuse their power, because of the reasonableness that is a golden line running through the Bill.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but again, I do not want to get on to parts of the Bill that are subject to amendments in future groups, so I will resist that temptation.
	Supermarkets can operate properly only with the good will of their suppliers. There are often cases in which, for example, a supplier has a problem at short notice—we have seen that recently with the issue of horsemeat. Things have to be taken off sale at short notice and production dries up quickly. That happens when foreign bodies are found in certain products, which have to be taken off the shelves. A supermarket can operate only if it then has other suppliers that it can go to and ask to fill the void at short notice. It goes to another supplier and says, “We’ve got some empty shelves and a lack of supply. Can you come and help us out?” Do people really think that the supplier would help out a supermarket chain that was trying to bankrupt it or screw it into the ground? Of course it would not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood made the point that the limits in my new clauses may impede small business at some point in future. However, new clause 2 specifies a turnover of £1 billion a year, and all I can say is that, my word, supermarkets must be a force for good if they can turn small and medium-sized enterprises into firms with a £1 billion-a-year turnover. That should be something to celebrate, not to criticise supermarkets for. Suppliers would be delighted to be companies of that scale. I am not entirely sure which ones in his constituency he is thinking of, but if he has any examples of firms that he is worried may have a turnover of £1 billion a year, I would like to meet them to find out what their fears are.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Can he illustrate to the House what he thinks would be £1 billion-worth of cauliflowers?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which strikes at the heart of new clauses 1 and 2. We can argue about the necessity of the Bill, and as far as I am concerned it is not only unnecessary—as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)
	made clear, there are no complaints about the existing code, so it is a solution looking for a problem—but the most unconservative-minded thing that we could possibly see. I have no problem with the Liberal Democrats supporting it, because of course they are always a left-wing tribe, but I am worried that members of my own party are supporting this intervention in the free markets.
	Two companies, free to make their own decisions, are making agreements and signing a contract, and then we in the House think that we should intervene in that contract that they have both entered into freely and say, “By the way, we don’t think you should have signed that contract.” I have always thought that companies are more than capable of deciding those things for themselves.

Mark Spencer: Again, my hon. Friend misunderstands the concept of what the groceries code adjudicator is intended to achieve, which is related to exactly the point that he has just made. When an agreement has been made between two parties, if both sides stick to it there is no problem, but there is a problem when one side tries to change that agreement and goes back on it at a later date.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and he seems to make the point that the Bill is totally unnecessary. I am not a lawyer—my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Bury North are, and I will happily bow to their expertise—but it seems to me as a layman that if two sides sign a contract and one side then breaks it, there are already laws in place to ensure that the matter can be seen through in the courts. The courts ensure that contracts entered into voluntarily are honoured, so we do not need to do that. The Office of Fair Trading already looks after the groceries code, which deals with these matters anyway.

Andy Sawford: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the role of the courts. Does he accept that the reason why many Opposition Members believe the Bill is important and helpful to farmers, producers, consumers and, ultimately, supermarkets, is the imbalance in economic power and in the relationship between small suppliers and the supermarkets? That the resources available to large supermarkets are vastly disproportionate to those available to small suppliers would be demonstrated in a court process.

Philip Davies: This is a red letter day for me, because I now have another volunteer to support my new clause 1 and new clause 2, which I will come on to in a second. The hon. Gentleman may well not have read them and therefore may have intervened inadvertently, but when he actually finds out what is in new clause 1 and new clause 2—if I am ever allowed to get on to that—he will find that he agrees with the point I am making. I do not agree with the principle of the Bill; I am the first to make that clear, and that relates to the purpose of new clause 3. On new clause 1 and new clause 2, the Bill was sold on the premise articulated by the hon. Gentleman—we have big supermarkets that are in a vastly preferential situation to very small suppliers, and that the House
	should be looking after those very small suppliers where they face problems. That is the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s point, and that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is indicating. That is how the purpose of the Bill was sold.
	I believe the Bill is totally unnecessary, but I am the first to accept that that is a minority view and that it will go ahead. My new clauses seek to ensure that the Bill hits its given purpose—to look after the small suppliers that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is rightly keen to look after. I do not disparage him for that. Currently, the Bill will not just look after the small suppliers that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) are so concerned about; it will give an avenue for complaint to all suppliers of supermarkets, whatever their size. All I can do is reiterate the fact that the vast majority of suppliers to supermarkets are huge companies in their own right, and that some of them are bigger than the supermarkets they supply.
	Let us make no bones about it. One way or another, the suppliers—whether in terms of special offers, deals or whatever—hope that ultimately the adjudicator will deliver a benefit to their bottom line. Suppliers hope, through whichever avenue, that this will ensure that they have a healthier bottom line.

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend must also recognise that the role of the groceries code adjudicator is as a referee. If a large corporation—we all know they exist—is in a trading disagreement with a supermarket, then the supermarket could use the groceries code adjudicator to make sure that it gets a fair deal from that large supplier.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes his point. As it happens, I am a Conservative. I know it is an old-fashioned view these days in the Conservative party, but I believe in the free market. Companies such as Asda, Tesco, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s are big enough to look after themselves. They do not need a referee to look after a contract on their behalf against any supplier; big companies are more than capable of doing that themselves. My hon. Friend may take the point that it is the role of Parliament to intervene in every contract negotiation between two companies.

Mark Tami: rose—

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I will in a second. I will deal with this intervention and then give way to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood may think that the role of this House is to intervene in all sorts of contract disputes. Why limit it to supermarkets? There are lots industries where one big person negotiates deals with a smaller supplier; it does not just happen in the supermarket trade. It seems to me that my hon. Friend is arguing for a total business ombudsman looking at every negotiated contract. That is not the kind of country I want to live in; it is certainly not what I consider to be Conservative.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. New clauses 1, 2 and 3 lay his cards on the table; essentially, they support
	the free market option. That is what they are about, regardless of the technicalities. Did he listen to Radio 4, as I did the other morning, when Billy Bragg was being interviewed? He made the comment that when we leave everything to the free market we end up with horsemeat.

Philip Davies: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the free market—that is why he sits on the Labour side of the House. I have no quibble with Opposition Members agreeing with this nonsensical Bill. He was elected to try and introduce this kind of interventionist nonsense. What I object to is Government Members believing in this kind of stuff. I have no quibble with him believing it.

Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman has painted a picture, which no doubt he actually believes in, where the supermarkets are fair and always have everyone’s best interests at heart. What would they have to fear, regardless of the size of the companies that could take them through this process? According to him, they have never, and will never, do anything wrong.

Philip Davies: In a Westminster Hall debate I heard one of my hon. Friends, who is favour of the Bill, make it abundantly clear that he thought the adjudicator would have nothing to do, and that it would, in effect, be a sinecure post. The adjudicator would just be there in case he was needed at some point. It is unnecessary, and I do not believe in creating unnecessary bureaucracies. They end up empire building. They start off small and targeted, but of course once they find out that they have nothing to do they find something to do, even when it is not necessary.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Andrew George: rose—

Philip Davies: I am going to make some progress. These are the same Members who were happy for the debate on three groups of amendments to be restricted to three hours, and they now want to try to prolong the debate for as long as possible. If they still want intervene at a later point I will try and allow it, but I am sure other Members want to speak.
	The Bill was sold on its supposed support for small suppliers. If that is what it is about, let us make that support clear in the Bill. New clause 1 states that the adjudicator could not have cases referred to it by, or on behalf of, companies with a turnover exceeding £500 million a year. New clause 2 is exactly the same, but puts the figure at £1 billion a year. To try to be as helpful as possible, I have done some investigation to try to work out what sort of companies would be covered by my new clauses, so that we can see what we are talking about. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether the purpose of the Bill is to help those companies.
	Returning to my point, suppliers hope the Bill will help their bottom line. If it does not, as a company there is no point to it. That is what they are hoping for. Who pays for an increase in the bottom line of a supplier? It will not be the supermarkets. I am sure the Opposition believe the idea that supermarkets’ profits are going to be eaten into, that there will be some kind of magical transfer of wealth from the supermarket to
	the supplier, and that the supermarket will give up its profits and it will all feed through and go to the small farmers. It does not work like that. What will happen is this: supermarkets work to very, very low margins. The whole purpose of supermarkets is to cut the price and increase the volume—that is how they look to increase their profit. If there is a benefit to the suppliers’ bottom line it will only come from one person: the consumer. Consumers will end up paying more for their products—that is what the Bill will deliver.
	If people want to tell their constituents that they are voting for them to pay more for their products, I am happy for them to do so—at least it would be honest, at least they would be saying, “Look, because we want to look after suppliers, you’ll have to pay more for your shopping, but we think it’s a price worth paying.” I would respect that. It is a perfectly respectable view.

Mark Menzies: My hon. Friend’s new clauses—on the £500 million and £1 billion thresholds—are incredibly sensible. We are talking about companies such as Procter & Gamble, Heinz, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Nestle, Mars, Kellogg’s—multi-billion dollar, multinational corporations—and it would be indefensible for a groceries adjudicator to spend its time on them, instead of on protecting small independent suppliers. He is absolutely right that it will lead to higher prices, because it will make buyers timid: they will not negotiate hard on behalf of the customer, because they will not want their time taken up with a groceries adjudicator. They will not want the bad publicity, so they will settle for second best, and people will get higher prices. He is on the money.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this subject.
	If people want to transfer money to suppliers either, in their idealistic world, from supermarkets or, in the real world, from their constituents, and if they think that a price worth paying, let them say so. If they reject my new clauses, however, I want them to be clear with their constituents about whom they are benefiting as a result of higher prices and who they will be paying their higher prices to. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) listed a few of them, but I will give a more extensive list, with your permission, Mr Speaker. We are talking about companies such as Esso, which supplies petrol to supermarkets. Do supporters of the Bill really want to help Esso, which is far bigger than any supermarket chain? Is the purpose of the Bill to enable Esso to go along with its complaint to the adjudicator, so that the adjudicator can faff about looking at a complaint from Esso about Tesco or Asda? Is that what the Bill is all about?

Eilidh Whiteford: The hon. Gentleman’s argument, to which I am listening carefully, seems to have been predicated on the premise that there is no problem, so why on earth would there be a problem between these big corporations?

Philip Davies: I will try to put it more simply for the hon. Lady’s benefit: I do not agree with the Bill, as I think I made abundantly clear—I did not want to mislead
	anybody. If we are to have a Bill, however, I want it to focus on the people I think she had in mind when she decided to support the Bill. If anybody wants to intervene and say that when they had the idea of supporting the Bill, the first company they had in mind was Esso, let them do so.

James Paice: rose—

Philip Davies: I thought my right hon. Friend was in favour of farmers, but he is obviously in favour of Esso.

James Paice: It pains me to have to point out to my hon. Friend that petrol is not a grocery and is not covered by the code, so he is making a completely spurious point.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Perhaps then we can move on to Procter & Gamble. Would it be covered by the Bill? Is that a spurious point too? When he supported the Bill and was telling his farmers how marvellous it was that the Government were supporting an adjudicator, did he say to them, “By the way, the biggest suppliers will have the greatest opportunity to benefit and could clog up the adjudicator with complaints before you get your own complaint heard, and one of those companies is Procter & Gamble”? Did he tell them that that was the sort of company he had in mind? No, I do not think he did.

Mark Spencer: Again, my hon. Friend is misrepresenting the role of the groceries code adjudicator. When a deal is done between two suppliers, whether large or small, as long as it is stuck to, there will be no role for the adjudicator. Those large companies can do their negotiations, and those deals will stand fast. The adjudicator would get involved only when the supermarket goes back and tries to change the original agreement. That is its role.

Philip Davies: So my hon. Friend does not think that Procter & Gamble is big enough to look after itself. He thinks poor little Procter & Gamble—that poor mite—needs a state adjudicator to intervene on its behalf because it might find itself at the wrong end of an unfair negotiation with a supermarket.

Justin Tomlinson: We are on the side of David, not Goliath. It seems eminently sensible that my hon. Friend’s new clauses would focus attention on the genuine David, not on supporting the real Goliath.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We were told that that was exactly the purpose of the Bill in the first place. When it was being sold to us, nobody said it would benefit Procter & Gamble. As has been rightly said, if we want the adjudicator’s time freed up to look after the small suppliers, we do not want its time being taken up by these big multinational corporations.
	As it happens, I am going to say something that might seem controversial, but to be perfectly honest I do not particularly care. If supermarkets are going around screwing Procter & Gamble into the ground
	to get the cheapest possible price to pass on to their customers, I say, “Good on them!” Procter & Gamble’s profits will not be massively impacted on by the supermarkets. I want supermarkets to negotiate robustly with big companies in order to get prices down for my constituents. The Labour party is supposed to support the working person—the people on fixed incomes—but the early indications are that its Members will vote to protect Procter & Gamble’s interests over the interests of their constituents. What on earth has the Labour party come to, when it sides with Procter & Gamble?
	It is not just Procter & Gamble, however. We have Harvest Energy, Green Energy Fuels, Imperial Tobacco, Arla Foods and Gallaher—the top suppliers to supermarkets. The naive people who think that the adjudicator will not empire build are living in cloud cuckoo land. If they think that the adjudicator will not look into all sorts of things, they obviously have no experience of these matters.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am slightly concerned that the hon. Gentleman has been diverted from the path of virtue on which he embarked some minutes ago. He was talking specifically about his new clauses, but he has since taken a series of interventions that, in a sense, have caused the debate to elide into a Second Reading consideration of the merits or otherwise of adjudicators and so on. I know that he will want to return to the terms of his new clauses, on which, of course, he can expand at such length as he sees fit, as I am sure he will. I call Mr Philip Davies.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Mr Speaker: Just before that, I call Mr Huw Irranca-Davies on a point of order.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be of some help to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and to you, as Speaker, to be aware that the new clauses refer specifically to the groceries supply code, but many of the elements that he is introducing into his speech have no connection with the groceries supply code. The companies to which he refers might supply supermarkets, but they do not fall within the remit of the groceries supply code.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he is seeking to be helpful, but I thought I had myself made the point perfectly adequately that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) would wish to return to the terms of his new clauses, which are themselves entirely orderly.

Philip Davies: I am grateful, Mr Speaker, but people ought to be aware that the Bill leaves great scope for the adjudicator to decide what to do. People should not have too much faith. The Bill deliberately gives it massive power and freedom.

Peter Bone: We have very limited time, because the House agreed to the programme motion, so perhaps we could speed things up. I notice that the Minister has been deep in conversation and looking at the new clauses. I wonder if she might intervene and accept new clause 2, because then we could move on.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is for ever an optimist, but I am afraid that, in my experience, logic is not usually the great winner in these debates. Unless the Government come up with an idea themselves, they appear reluctant to accept anybody else’s amendment, simply because they did not come up with it themselves.
	Do we think the Bill should be directed at Walkers snack foods? What about Coca-Cola? That is a poor, small firm that needs looking after when it negotiates with supermarkets!

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend refers to Walkers snack foods. Potatoes are among the raw materials that that company uses a lot of, but there is nothing in the Bill that would protect the suppliers of potatoes to Walkers.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill would still allow Walkers to screw the potato suppliers—who provide the raw materials—into the ground as much as it liked, but it would prevent Asda, for example, from trying to negotiate the best deal with Walkers for its crisps.
	I have mentioned Coca-Cola. I also wonder whether Heinz Ltd would really need to take a complaint to an adjudicator. Is Heinz not big enough to look after itself? Why on earth are we passing legislation to intervene in disputes between big supermarkets and big suppliers such as Heinz, Diageo, United Biscuits, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, Premier Foods, Fullers Foods, Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd and Mars? Are we really saying that the House must set up a state regulator to intervene in negotiations or disputes between massive multinational companies? Those companies have recourse to the courts if they feel that a contract has been breached. Are we really saying that Heinz does not have the wherewithal to take a case to court if it feels that a supplier has dealt with it unfairly? Does anyone want to stand up and say that Heinz does not have the wherewithal to take such a case to court? Who wants to make that point?

Mark Spencer: rose—

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend does.

Mark Spencer: I will happily challenge my hon. Friend on that point. Those large companies have the ability to negotiate deals, and those deal will be stuck to. The groceries code adjudicator will not get involved in those kinds of negotiations. The adjudicator will have a role to play when a supermarket tries to go back on a deal and change it at a later date.

Philip Davies: We all know that that is the case, but my point is that if companies such as Heinz, Walkers, Nestlé or Coca-Cola feel that a supermarket has breached a contract with them, they can take the case to court. We do not need the state to set up an adjudicator to decide which side is right. As it happens, I am quite relaxed about supermarkets trying to screw those big suppliers into the ground to get the best possible deal. Those suppliers are making massive profits, and I would prefer to see that money benefiting my constituents rather than adding to the bottom line of those multinational companies.

Andrew George: rose—

Philip Davies: I will let the hon. Gentleman explain why he wants to add to the bottom line of those multinational companies.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is, in truth, arguing for the abolition of all the competition authorities. That seems to be the direction that his argument is taking. In fact, clause 4 makes it clear that the decision to investigate would be made if the adjudicator had reasonable grounds for suspecting a breach of the code, and clause 10 makes it clear that any supplier who brought a complaint that was “vexatious or…without merit” would be required to pay some or all of the costs involved. Paragraph 48 of the Competition Commission’s final report stated that it envisaged that the groceries code adjudicator
	“would prioritize the resources of its office to focus on those disputes and complaints concerning suppliers without market power over and above those concerning suppliers of major branded products that have market power.”
	It is clear that such decisions must be made by the adjudicator, and I am perfectly content that the Bill has the capacity to ensure that that description—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but interventions seem to be becoming progressively longer. There is no problem about their frequency, but there is about their length. We must now hear from Mr Philip Davies.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.
	The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) misreads the Bill, but I will come to the point about the recovery of investigation costs when we debate the other groups of amendments. The Bill does not say that those costs have to be recovered in that way; it says that they “may” be recovered. He seems to have huge faith in allowing the adjudicator to do just as it pleases, but I do not want it to do just as it pleases. I want it to follow strict rules that will prevent it from empire building, and that is part of the purpose of my new clauses.

Justin Tomlinson: The adjudicator will clearly have finite amounts of time and resources. Surely it would be better for it to focus on the smaller suppliers who do not have the confidence or the resources to take on the supermarkets.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is the purpose of the Bill. The big multinational companies that I have mentioned are the biggest suppliers to the supermarkets, in that they supply the biggest volume of the 40,000 or so products on sale in supermarkets at any given time, and they therefore have the most scope to benefit from the Bill. Why on earth should we wish to enable them to do that? I do not know the answer, and no one has yet argued that Heinz or Nestlé cannot afford to take their contractual disputes to court or explained why we need an adjudicator to act on their behalf. They do not need an adjudicator; they are perfectly big enough and bad enough to look after their own interests without needing an adjudicator to step in, and so are the supermarkets.
	When there is an agreement between a huge multinational supermarket such as Asda, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and a huge multinational supplier such as Heinz or Walkers or Nestlé, let them get on with it. If there is then a row about who has broken a particular rule, let them get on and sort it out themselves. Believe you me, Asda needs
	Heinz products in its stores just as much as Heinz needs Asda to sell its products. It is a perfectly even arrangement between the two; the one could not manage without the other. Let them sort the disputes out between themselves. Why on earth are we legislating to get involved in those disputes? That is completely ridiculous. Members are arguing that the introduction of a groceries code adjudicator will help small suppliers, and supporting new clauses 1 or 2 will give them an opportunity to make it abundantly clear to the House that the Bill is designed to help the smaller suppliers to supermarkets.
	I want to explain why I have used the figure of £500 million in new clause 1 and £1 billion in new clause 2, and why—with your permission, Mr Speaker—I shall put new clause 2 to a vote. I have listed some of the suppliers that would be covered by the £1 billion figure in new clause 2. The adjudicator will deal with retailers with a turnover of more than £1 billion. The Bill is effectively saying that other people need protecting from such huge organisations, and that they are too big not to have an unfair advantage in any contract negotiation. The Bill therefore puts in place a kind of backstop. My point is that if a supermarket with a turnover of £1 billion a year is deemed big enough to look after itself without any extra help or support, surely suppliers with a similar turnover are in exactly the same situation. If a supermarket with such a turnover is deemed too big to be trusted to negotiate properly, why would a supplier with a similar turnover need the protection of the adjudicator? Where on earth is the logic in that?

Ian Murray: rose—

Philip Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us.

Ian Murray: We have all been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make two important points. First, his proposals are not backed by the industry itself. The Food and Drink Federation and the British Brands Group do not support the proposed restrictions in his new clauses. Secondly, although I have some sympathy with his wish to move further down the supply chain, his proposals were not accepted in Committee.

Philip Davies: That is an extraordinary intervention. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he is not minded to support my new clauses because the representatives of the food and drink industry, who represent massive suppliers, do not support them. The Opposition are not going to support them because they want to look after the interests of those massive organisations that pay the bills of the Food and Drink Federation. Can the hon. Gentleman not make a decision for himself on this matter? Has he not got the capability to understand the equation for himself? I will make it simple for him. Why do suppliers with a turnover of more than £1 billion need help, if a supermarket retailer with a turnover of more than £1 billion does not need help? It is a nonsensical position for anybody to hold.
	I notice that we have two Liberal Democrat Ministers on the Front Bench: they are used to holding nonsensical positions, and I do not doubt that they are going to stick to them; they have made a political career out of
	nonsensical decisions. I ask Conservative Members—people who, for goodness’ sake, have some common sense—to think about the issue and what we are voting for. I ask Labour Members to think about it, too. Who is it that they were sent here to represent? Were they sent here to represent the interests of Mars and Nestlé? No. Surely they were sent here to represent the interests of their constituents, who go to the supermarket week in, week out, who are worried by the cost of living, and who do not want to see prices put up unnecessarily to add to the bottom line of Nestlé. The whole thing is completely nonsensical. My new clause would ensure that the Bill serves the purpose for which it was intended.
	Let me touch briefly on new clause 3, after which I will allow others to contribute to the debate. New clause 3 provides a sunset clause for the Bill, so that it would expire after a certain period of time. The appropriate length of time can be debated, and such decisions are rather arbitrary. I chose a period of seven years to give a chance to see how the Bill works in practice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) has made the point that if supermarkets stick to their agreement, there would be nothing for the adjudicator to do. We would be paying her a huge salary to do nothing, which seems a bizarre situation, but there we go. On the other hand, there might be lots of complaints and everything could be working fantastically with everyone thinking that the Bill has been a great triumph, with even small suppliers thinking that it has been great, and all the rest of it. Well, in seven years’ time, we can let the Bill expire and decide for ourselves whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. We can also decide whether the threshold I favour is worth putting back in again if we agree to it today or worth inserting if we do not. We will be able to see how it works in practice. If all my fears turn out not to be a problem, it can all be resolved when the Bill is looked at again in seven years’ time. If my fears are proved to be correct and people accept that some of my concerns were true, it could equally be dealt with at that particular point. Why box ourselves into something that is a complete waste of time? Let us have a sunset clause, so that we can deal with any anomalies and the Government can start from scratch with a future Bill that is more fit for purpose.

Peter Bone: I am considering whether to support new clause 3. Am I right in understanding that if, in seven years’ time, the post of adjudicator turns out to have been superfluous, it would just fade away, whereas if it has been a good measure, Prime Minister Cameron would, in his 21st year or whatever, be able to reintroduce it?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. He knows as well as I do that if such a sunset clause is not introduced, and if the Bill is shown to be a completely unnecessary waste of time and an expensive bit of bureaucracy that we could well have done without, it will carry on endlessly. Nobody will have the guts to do anything about it. The provision will provide a mechanism for getting rid of the legislation if it is seen to be unnecessary. If it were seen to be necessary—who knows, I do not think it will, but it might—people could bring it back and would be anxious to get the legislation in place again. My new clause 3 will stop some ridiculous white elephant carrying on in perpetuity, when it is seen to be unnecessary. I say in passing that it would be sensible if
	more Bills had sunset clauses included in them, so that we can analyse whether they have been worthwhile and have done what was said on the tin.
	My intention in this group of amendments has been to focus on new clauses 1 and 2. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to divide the House on new clause 2, which would put the same £1 billion threshold on suppliers as applies in the Bill for the retailers themselves. There seems no good reason to me why the same figure should not apply to both sides of the equation. A Division will enable us all to see who has gone into the Lobby to look after the interests of big multinational suppliers and who effectively wants their constituents to pay more for their shopping to benefit the bottom line of those companies.
	I do not believe I was sent to Parliament to boost the profits of Heinz, Mars or Nestlé, who are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests. I want my constituents to pay the lowest amount necessary for the products they buy in the supermarket. They are already struggling with the cost of living. How ridiculous it would be if we were to put legislation in place that made them pay more than they would otherwise need to pay for their shopping. I hope that the Government will see sense and realise that the same equation should apply on both sides of the supply chain—to retailers and suppliers. I hope they will think about that and listen to reason. If they do not, I hope the House will force them to do so.

John McDonnell: I shall provide a brief background to amendment 3 and to the other amendments tabled in my name.
	I am chair of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group. We meet that union, which represents the workers in the baking and confectionary industry, on a regular basis. We have had a long campaign over a number of years to express our concerns about below-cost selling in the baking and confectionary sector. The concern relates to the Bill’s general provisions, but because I raised it on Second Reading, I shall not delay us further except to explain that the same pressure suppliers have felt from supermarkets has had its effect on the baking industry, as it has on farming and elsewhere.
	The pressure to cut overall costs has reduced the quality of the product. Concerns have also been expressed over the years about the safety of ingredients. Some consumer organisations have pointed out the deterioration of the quality of bread as a result of the amount of water introduced into bread production, which has undermined the nutritional benefits from eating bread and has had an impact on the population’s health.
	The anxiety is that the same sort of pressure has been applied to the baking industry. The result for members of the bakers’ union has been reductions in wages and job cuts, and the reduction in overall pay means that this sector has significant levels of low pay; in fact, it is one of the most low-paid sectors in our industry at the moment. Another impact of that pressure is deteriorating working conditions and terms of employment. Bakers have expressed the concern that skills within the sector have been undermined, too. With people’s potential to be upskilled undermined, it means further pressure on wages.
	These are vulnerable workers, therefore, and they are fearful of raising their concerns about what is happening in this sector. That is why the bakers’ union has combined with employers and others to welcome this Bill. It feels that it gives its members protection when they blow the whistle on some of the supermarket practices that lead to deteriorating conditions in the industry. That, then, is the background to the amendment.
	The bakers’ union welcomes clause 13, which enables the adjudicator to recommend to the Office of Fair Trading changes to the code as issues arise over time. It is important, however, that this process is seen to be open and transparent. That is what amendment 3 is designed to achieve. It would simply ensure that the Office of Fair Trading is required to publish its response to the recommendations in the groceries code adjudicator’s review. The response should explain whether the OFT has acted on those recommendations. The amendment would introduce a process of openness and transparency that will lead to accountability. It would place a statutory duty on the OFT to make its functions patently open to scrutiny from the general public and the industry itself.
	I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) will speak about amendments 34 and 35, which relate to the wider concern that we now feel about the nutritional content of some of the consumer goods that are placed before us. My amendment responds to some elements of that concern by proposing that recommendations whose implementation would improve the nutrition of our country and the operation of a particular food sector are in fact implemented, or reasons are given for the fact that they are not being implemented.

Andy Sawford: When Labour Members tried in Committee to strengthen the relationship between the adjudicator and the Office of Fair Trading, we were given very unsatisfactory reassurances. We were told, for example, that the adjudicator could use the publicly available telephone line to contact the OFT. Any measures that strengthen that relationship must surely be welcome.

John McDonnell: I followed the dialogue that took place in Committee and read the reports of it. That has been one of the joys of my life over the last couple of months. The Minister said that an amendment such as mine was unnecessary, and would not give the Bill any additional force. She suggested that if the OFT repeatedly failed to act on the adjudicator’s recommendations, two routes would be available. Select Committees, she said, would have “a role to play”, and it would also be possible for any supplier to conduct a judicial review of the OFT, in particular to establish whether it was behaving reasonably or in relation to its duties under the Enterprise Act 2002.
	I shall not comment on the hotline issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), because I thought it too bizarre, to say the least. I took it to be just part of the knockabout of Committee stages in which Members engage just to keep themselves awake. I shall, however, deal with the issue of the judicial review. Of course it is open to any supplier to initiate such a review, but it is virtually impossible that it would succeed on reasonableness grounds, especially in the context of the OFT’s powers and the broad range of
	the adjudicator’s role. I do not think that it would be a constructive process. Moreover, the time required for it would not deal with the immediacy of some of the adjudicator’s recommendations.
	As for Select Committees, of course they have a role, but they have no directional force. They can recommend, but their recommendations are often ignored, or there is a long gestation period between the initiation of a review and the acceptance and implementation of recommendations in the consequent report.
	I understand the reason for the Minister’s responses in Committee. I realise that she does not want to over-bureaucratise the process. However, I think that the world has changed and moved on since the Committee stage. There has been, for instance, the issue of public concern about the content of consumer goods following the horsemeat scandal. People expect the Government to be decisive, as well as open and transparent, in tidying up the current mess, but in the long term they expect a system that will monitor the operations of the supermarkets and other parts of the grocery supply chain. It is necessary to ensure that when we have a structure in place it operates openly, transparently and effectively, and that is what my amendment seeks to do.
	If we cannot give the OFT a duty to report on whether or not it has acted on a recommendation from the groceries code adjudicator or has taken it into account, that demonstrates the weakness of the Bill. The amendment does not even require a detailed report giving reasons for the OFT’s decision, although there will probably be a public clamour for such a requirement following the rejection of a recommendation. This is a simple, minor amendment, which I think the House would be expected to support in the current climate. For that reason I intend, if time permits, to press it to a Division.

James Paice: I listened carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I fully accept the logic of saying that there are some very large food producers in the world whose market dominance is such that they do not need the protection of the Bill. However, I think that a careful reading of it demonstrates that it will ensure that the instances cited by my hon. Friend will not actually come to pass. I remind him of my earlier point—which was endorsed, in different terms, by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—that this was purely about the groceries code adjudicator. Many of the businesses listed by my hon. Friend may be only partly involved in groceries. For instance, a number of the products of Procter & Gamble, about which he spoke at length, are not grocery products. Moreover, the trading arms of big multinational conglomerates are likely, as individual suppliers, to be much smaller organisations.
	Let me now deal with a point of principle raised by my hon. Friend. He sought to pour scorn on those of us who are also Conservative Members, but who support the Bill. He said that he was entirely in favour of a free market. I too am in favour of a free market, but I also believe in a fair market. If we took the definition of a free market to its extreme, which my hon. Friend came close to doing, we would end up with a single retailer and a single supplier, because that it is the eventual aim.
	The game of Monopoly is the arch-example of a total, unfettered free enterprise. I strongly believe, not that markets must be regulated, but that when there is a clear imbalance in a market, some element of fairness is necessary. I remind my hon. Friend that one of the great market philosophers, Adam Smith, said that a true market was one in which there were equal numbers of suppliers and purchasers.

Justin Tomlinson: That is the point of new clause 2. It would focus time, resources and attention on the suppliers whom we need to protect in order to ensure that there is no monopoly from their point of view.

James Paice: I will come to that specific point, but let me first deal with the more philosophical point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who made clear that he did not consider those of us who share these Benches with him to be true Conservatives if we supported the Bill. I wish to rebut that view. The Bill is necessary because—as has just been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—notwithstanding what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, there are plenty of examples of supermarkets exceeding what I believe to be fair terms of trade.
	During my time as a Minister, I had a number of meetings with supermarket chief executives, either alone or in a group. Most of them—and, indeed, other senior directors and officials from supermarkets—would argue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, that there is no need for the Bill, and that they are already doing everything fairly, above board and properly. I can only conclude that many chief executives do not know what is being done in their names by people operating much further down the chain. Reference has been made to buyers. Since the code was introduced in 2010, there have been numerous examples, some quite recent, of suppliers being verbally required by supermarkets to use a nominated haulier, even though the supplier may be able to find an equally good and competent haulier to do the job for less money. There are also examples of supermarkets seeing that a supplier has made a certain amount of profit in one year, but instead of saying to them, “We think you’re being excessive and therefore we should pay you slightly less for your product next year,” which we could all accept, they say they want a cheque now—today—for £1.5 million or more before they will even consider doing business with that supplier next year. That is not acceptable; it is not a moral way of doing business, which is why I strongly believe the supermarkets need to be investigated. The debate has understandably ranged over a number of different types of commodities, but the most glaring examples of these practices have been in the fresh produce sector.
	My hon. Friend also said that having a supermarket adjudicator would be a waste of time if it turned out that he had nothing to do. My attitude is different. I would be delighted if the adjudicator had nothing to do, because it would demonstrate that everything was being done in accordance with the code and that all suppliers were being treated fairly—although I have to tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe there is any chance whatever of that being the case. Indeed, a number of cases are already being brought forward for the adjudicator to deal with, and I have described a couple
	of them. I think the threat of such action may well prove to be the answer to our problems, but it is wrong to suggest that there is no need for an adjudicator on the basis that the code is in place, as it is clearly not enforceable through the Office of Fair Trading.
	My hon. Friend also seems to ignore the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). The Competition Commission’s reason for all this was to look after the consumer. The whole thrust of its argument was that shifting risk from the retailer to the supplier was putting the long-term interests of the consumer at risk, with the result that while items may be cheaper today, they may be far more expensive in future, or the supply chain may no longer exist. That is not in the long-term interests of the consumer.

Philip Davies: I will ignore the nonsensical—and, to be frank, idiotic—point that this measure will be of benefit to consumers. My right hon. Friend said he would be happy for the adjudicator to have nothing to do. Will he tell us how much the adjudicator is going to be paid?

James Paice: I do not know, because it has not been made public. That is a complete irrelevance, however. It is not a reasonable argument, because the situation in this case is the same as it is for judges: if everybody obeyed the law, we would not need any judges, but we would still have them, just in case. There is ample evidence that there will be cases for the adjudicator to adjudicate on, however. The Bill contains a number of limiting provisions, too: the adjudicator can decide not to take up a reference; the adjudicator can fine somebody if the reference has no serious foundation; and the adjudicator’s job is only to arbitrate on alleged breaches of the code, which is quite a narrowly drawn document. I strongly believe the Bill is right as drafted.

Gavin Shuker: The right hon. Gentleman acquired extensive knowledge of the food sector in his time as a DEFRA Minister. As this new clause addresses the balance of power between suppliers and retailers, I wonder whether in his time as a Minister he came across any evidence that big suppliers were putting downward pressure on retailers in the way the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has advanced.

James Paice: The honest answer is that, no, I did not come across such evidence, but it may well have been happening and I just did not know about it, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley rightly said, those very big suppliers can look after themselves. I am not arguing against what has been said. Indeed, I would have had some sympathy for new clause 2 and the £1 billion threshold if I thought my hon. Friend’s motives were justified, but as a result of the rest of his argument I completely lost any support for it that I might otherwise have had. I also think the Bill as currently drafted will militate against big organisations acting in such ways. The Bill is designed to deal with problems that we all agree arise, and which tend to fall on small and medium-sized enterprises.

Andrew George: I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments. Following the logic of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Shipley, the conclusion
	we would draw is that the Bill should look both ways, as it were. I have drawn that conclusion and would like the Bill to reflect that, by seeking to ensure there is fair dealing across the supermarket supply chain, so that if a supplier became too powerful, complaints could be made the other way.

James Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right.

Peter Bone: I have been listening to my right hon. Friend’s speech very carefully, as it serves to balance the debate. I am very attracted to new clause 2. The Bill is designed to look after the small guy and not the big guy. How would accepting new clause 2 present a problem?

James Paice: It is entirely for the Government to decide whether to accept new clause 2. It does not cause me a huge problem, but I believe it to be completely unnecessary for the reasons I have described. Nothing I have said could be deemed as suggesting I am against it, but I just do not see any need for it. I certainly believe, however, that there is a very real problem that needs to be addressed, and this Bill seeks to do precisely that. That is not the basis on which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley proposes his amendments, however; as he has said, he does not agree with the Bill at all. I do agree with it, and I would like its provisions to become law as soon as possible.

Ian Murray: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). As his contribution shows, we have a cross-party and cross-House consensus on this matter, and we should take it forward.
	Amendment 28 provides that when the adjudicator publishes guidance, she must include guidance about which law applies to arbitration and where the arbitration should be conducted. That is particularly important where there are suppliers from remote parts of the United Kingdom. Article 11 of the Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009—that rolls off the tongue—provides for a dispute resolution scheme. The scheme provides for the application of certain arbitration rules, with London as the default location for any arbitration. Clauses 12(5) and 12(6) of the Bill make provision for the amendment of the scheme and the application of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 to arbitrations carried out by the adjudicator. However, it will be important for suppliers and retailers alike to be given statutory guidance on the law applicable to arbitrations and the choice of location for arbitration. Our amendment would require the adjudicator to issue such guidance.
	Amendments 30 and 33 would require the adjudicator to give consideration to large retailer subsidiaries and supply chain intermediaries when making recommendations to the Office of Fair Trading. Amendment 33 appears to duplicate amendment 30, but if the provision goes into the Bill twice, I am sure the message will go out about what we are trying to achieve. However, we will not press amendment 33 to a Division, given that it is a duplicate.
	Our amendments aim to deal with the issue that the code does not cover some areas in the supply chain where abuses occur. I shall provide two such examples: company subsidiaries—Asda, for example, has a subsidiary called International Procurement and Logistics Ltd that sources 100% of its product requirements; and intermediaries in the supply chains, which, in some cases, are larger than the retailers themselves. That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the whole point of the groceries code and the adjudicator is to try to even the balance of power in the two relationships and that often the balance can lie on the other side. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) did not press his amendments in Committee, as the adjudicator would then have been able to operate in both spheres and the large supermarket would have been able to take to the adjudicator issues concerning multinational companies that had been brought to its attention.
	Clearly, the adjudicator’s role is to address and remedy any abusive purchasing practices perpetrated by the “buyers” defined in the groceries supply code of practice—GSCOP—who will include a significant number of overseas suppliers. Their role in supplying the UK market with food is vital in terms of addressing the adverse effect on competition identified by the Competition Commission in 2008. It said that there was evidence that excessive risks were being passed on to suppliers, an issue that has been mentioned by hon. Members from both sides of the House. We are concerned at the increase in the number of retailers setting up sourcing offices in a number of countries. For example, Asda set up International Produce Ltd—recently renamed International Procurement and Logistics Ltd—to undertake the buying of what will go on to Asda’s shelves. Therefore, there is a strong case for the Bill to include such organisations, which make the key resourcing decisions—for example, on price, volume, specification and the payment process—on the products that end up on the shelves of the 10 retailers.
	We must remember that there is a strong international perspective to this issue. ActionAid and Traidcraft have been active and strong supporters of not only the Bill, but its strengthening in this regard. They were seeking a resolution to ensure that retailers trade fairly with overseas producers well before the code was envisaged or indeed delivered. UK supermarkets buy a significant volume of their products from overseas and produce a considerable —[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr George, I am sure that you are not listening to a message while you are in the Chamber. I hope that we do not see a repeat and that your phone is completely switched off.

Ian Murray: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	We know the origins of the code came from the Competition Commission report in 2008; we have already discussed the excessive risks to suppliers, particularly overseas ones. The practices behind that would have had the potential to harm those producers overseas who
	are the most vulnerable and to be an obstacle to progress on the pay and conditions of, and innovation by, farmers and farm workers in developing countries. UK shoppers rightly enjoy the widest range of choice, via large retailers. The outstanding quality of produce cannot be in doubt, but the Bill has the opportunity to ensure that there is protection for all territories and to make a large contribution to the development of other countries. Amendment 30 asks for the code to be extended to other territories and asks the adjudicator to look at this matter when making recommendations to the OFT.
	The subsidiaries issue is also worth exploring, as it shows clearly that the large retailers have different arrangements in place. That has to be taken into account, which is what the amendment seeks to achieve. It would be good to get clarity from the Minister on what the process would be if difficulties were identified with regard to the code in these subsidiaries or other territories. The relationship of the code in the complex matrix of buying and production is from the large retailer to the immediate supplier. As the Bill stands, that means that the large retailer is able to set up subsidiaries to buy apples from X Ltd rather than directly from the supplier.
	Amendment 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and it goes to the heart of some of the main issues that have been discussed in the House over the past few months. Our amendment calls on the Government to ensure that the GSCOP, which the adjudicator referees, covers the issue of commercial pressures that can be put on suppliers and that drive down quality and safety, creating possible food scandals, such as the recent revelations around horsemeat in beef products.
	The amendment would explicitly enable the adjudicator to include in its annual report details of any incidents where it had become aware that commercial pressure had been applied to suppliers to drive down costs, standards and health and safety, resulting in a drop in food standards or authenticity. To answer some of the criticisms that will probably come from the hon. Member for Shipley and his like, I should say that the amendment is directly related to clause 14 and the annual report to the OFT, not necessarily in the sense of the issues arising where someone takes a case to the adjudicator to deal with in terms of the code.
	Amendment 35 would require the adjudicator to send its annual report to the Food Standards Agency. That would create an important link between the adjudicator and the FSA in terms of some of the issues related to the horsemeat scandal that we have seen in recent weeks. As has been reported, the UK’s National Beef Association has blamed what it called the “bullying culture” that retail buyers have used for decades for the presence of horsemeat in beef products. Its national director, Chris Mallon, has said the public and retailers were paying the price for
	“short-sighted, price-led purchasing tactics”.
	He said that buyers had
	“adopted a bullying culture aimed exclusively at securing as much farm food as possible, for as little cost as possible, and the result is tortured supply chains that add so much unnecessary cost that short cuts on quality and traceability, and even cheating by some suppliers, was inevitable.”
	That quote shows how important it might be to include the amendment in the Bill.
	Consumers must have confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe, but over recent weeks that confidence has been hit hard. Many of the problems in this particular scandal have been outright criminal, and, of course, the criminal courts will deal with those, but Ministers have been slow to act, as has been shown in our debates in this House. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has been ahead of the UK every step of the way. By having an annual reporting requirement on food safety and hygiene through the adjudicator, some of the issues that have been raised eloquently by the national director of the UK NBA could be dealt with.
	The amendment has another link with the Food Standards Agency, as its budget has been cut from £143 million to £132 million. Although we should not get into a debate today about budgets of particular Government agencies or Departments, it would be an important step to say that the adjudicator, in its report to the OFT, could refer some of these cases. That might help to soften the blow caused by the reduction in resources.

David Heath: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman made clear his belief, which is certainly my belief, that no matter what commercial pressures there are, it does not excuse criminal behaviour on the part of producers, processors or retailers.

Ian Murray: I agree 100% with the Minister. We hope that by having the adjudicator reporting annually to the OFT on those issues, steps would be taken before any criminal activity had taken place. That might be dealt with at a much earlier stage in the process, because the adjudicator may come across instances where it feels the costs have been driven down so low as to compromise food safety. Our approach would allow a supplier to take such issues to the adjudicator, and they may be included in the adjudicator’s annual report. That might help to stop things reaching the stage we have seen in the past few weeks. The amendment could play an important part in tackling future abuses that could occur—that goes to the heart of what the Minister has just said. Does the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is going to reply, agree that it is crucial that the adjudicator is alert to these issues? Will she therefore support our amendment to allow the adjudicator to report any abuses it sees occurring on food hygiene and food safety issues directly to the OFT? My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore might want to expand on some of those points.
	Amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is critical as it would require the Office of Fair Trading explicitly to respond to the recommendations that the adjudicator publishes. If the adjudicator were to include a food hygiene or food safety issue in their annual report to the OFT, it is only fair that the OFT should have to respond to those recommendations. That should be considered in how the GSCOP and the adjudicator are set up.
	As the Bill stands, the adjudicator can make recommendations to the OFT should it determine that changes should be made to the groceries code. Of course, only the OFT can change the code, but, critically,
	nothing in the Bill binds it merely to respond to the recommendations. We are not saying that a binding clause in the Bill should ensure that the OFT acts on every recommendation, but the OFT should at least be bound to respond to the recommendations so that the industry has some transparency on the issues raised in the report. We made that point in Committee on a number of occasions. The Minister responded that if the OFT continued to ignore the recommendations, the Government would step in and do something about it. Indeed, she suggested that there could be some review of the OFT’s processes. That is all well and good, and I appreciate the fact that she gave that reassurance, but we are looking for a two-way dialogue between the adjudicator’s office and the OFT. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and I have put our names to the amendment and we will certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington if he wishes to press it to a Division.
	Let me turn briefly to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Shipley. Sometimes we need regulation to allow the free market to work properly. Indeed, the whole purpose of the groceries code and the groceries code adjudicator is to ensure that those markets work properly without a damaging imbalance in the power of the various factors concerned. The large companies listed by the hon. Gentleman can look after themselves, and he is right to raise that issue, but they will not go to the adjudicator. The adjudicator has been set up to consider supplier imbalances in market power, as considered by the Competition Commission. I am sure that the adjudicator would not wish to consider an imbalance in the other direction just because she is not mandated to do so.
	As for the sunset clause, the hon. Member for Shipley cannot have it both ways. He says that the adjudicator will have nothing to do, but also says that the adjudicator will look after the interests of the very large organisations. If the adjudicator will have lots to do, we will not want a sunset clause after seven years. The adjudicator will therefore carry on. New clause 3 is unnecessary as we must show our confidence that the adjudicator will do a good job.
	I do not think that I need to deal directly with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), given that we have already dealt through amendment 30 with whether the ActionAid and Traidcraft issues of international territorial extent can be dealt with. I have some sympathy with amendment 27, as one of the big arguments in Committee was that the adjudicator could not come in on day one after Royal Assent—I think the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) also mentioned that in one of his amendments—to consider the issues happening now as well as to collect evidence on what has happened since the groceries code came into effect. The amendment would be very sensible; the quicker the adjudicator gets up and running the better as she will have to deal with either lots of issues or, if the hon. Member for Shipley is correct, none.
	I will wish to test the view of the House on amendment 34, which is, of course, consequential on amendment 35. We would also like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington if he wishes to press amendment 3.

Mark Spencer: I shall not detain the House for long, but I want to make some general comments about some of the amendments and new clauses.
	I rise with an enormous amount of frustration, because in my opinion a number of Members seem not wholly to understand the role of the adjudicator and how they will fit in to the grocery supply chain in the United Kingdom. There has been an enormous amount of debate on new clauses 2 and 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), which I would like to explore. I understand his motivation in trying to ensure that the adjudicator deals with smaller companies, but I think he misunderstands how the grocery supply chain works.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that large companies are big enough, ugly enough and strong enough to do their own negotiation. That is what will happen between those suppliers and supermarkets; the groceries code adjudicator will have no role in those deals or supply contracts. Even a small producer could agree, if they chose to do so, to supply a product at below the cost of production. If they were minded to do that, that would be entirely their decision. They could commit suicide in that way and the adjudicator would have no role to step in and get involved in the deal. The only point at which the adjudicator would get involved would be when the supermarket wanted to change the deal agreed by the supplier and the retailer. It seems simple to me: Unilever and other large corporations have the commercial muscle to negotiate a deal with which they and the retailer are happy. As long as that deal does not change, no one will get involved. That seems to me to be a system that will work well and that, through market forces, has worked well for generations.
	My hon. Friend’s point about trying to restrict the remit of the Bill to companies with a very small turnover might be honourable, but it is not necessary. No case will come forward.

Philip Davies: My amendment does not seek to restrict the remit only to very small suppliers but to suppliers with a turnover of up to £1 billion; surely my hon. Friend cannot argue that a supplier with a turnover of £950 million is a very small supplier.

Mark Spencer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as it allows me to clarify that that is my exact point. At no point will there be such a negotiation, as this is not a David and Goliath situation. We are talking about two Goliaths, so the adjudicator will have no role. My hon. Friend has made a career of criticising unnecessary legislation and it seems strange that he should now want to introduce an unnecessary clause into a Bill. I hope that he recognises that new clause 2 would not be necessary simply because the adjudicator will not have a role in negotiating between two Goliaths.

Justin Tomlinson: Surely the new clause will send a crystal clear message to the adjudicator, when they take on the role, about where they need to focus their efforts.

Mark Spencer: Again, there is a misunderstanding of what will happen. We are talking about very large companies that are negotiating with very large companies.
	They both have an equal amount of commercial muscle, so no one party will be able to bully the other. That is quite important. The adjudicator is meant to get involved as a referee and negotiate when one large party abuses a smaller party and uses its commercial muscle to push something through.

Andrew George: I support the arguments that my hon. Friend is making. He knows that this is a dynamic and creative market in which a number of intermediaries and subsidiaries have been created with a turnover of more than £1 billion, which could be used as a means of sidestepping the legislation if new clause 2 was accepted.

Mark Spencer: I recognise that. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has worked on this matter since before I became a Member. Perhaps that is something that the adjudicator could look at as we move forward. There is this ability to put a film between parties and cause an issue. That comes back to small suppliers, who supply the middlemen.
	New clause 3 would cause the Bill to expire after seven years. It would be disappointing if it did so. Using the analogy of a football match, if we get to half time and the referee has not needed to issue a yellow card, no one suggests that we do not need a referee in the second half.

George Eustice: We have had plenty of time to understand how supermarkets deal with their suppliers and it is precisely because of that that everyone who has looked seriously at this issue has concluded that we need an adjudicator.

Mark Spencer: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to bring the legislation to this point.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, regardless of whether there have been complaints, the existence of the adjudicators office will bring a cost so it would make sense to bring the whole thing to an end if it is not proving worth while to the consumer?

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We could make the same argument across government; if crime starts to fall in an area, do we withdraw the police because they are not necessary? We have to have a referee to make sure that the rules are being obeyed. The groceries code adjudicator will be a great referee and will have the teeth to make sure that the Goliath does not bully the David. That is something that the Government should be proud of and take forward to bring a little parity and common sense to the market.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to speak in this debate and I welcome the speeches that have been made so far. I did not expect it to be as sparky as it has been, but I welcome that because it allows us to flush out the arguments about the amendments and new clauses, as well as the fundamental principles of what we are trying to achieve.
	I did not intend to speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 3, but I wish to reiterate the comments made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice)
	and others. A great deal of discussion in Committee focused on the fact that the adjudicator’s office will intentionally be small, mean and lean. It will not be some behemoth, as the hon. Members who spoke to new clauses 1, 2 and 3 suggested it would be. It is supposed to be an intelligent organisation that does not go on fishing expeditions but responds to good intelligence. I suspect that if there are no cases to follow, the report will be very slim indeed. I suspect that the adjudicator will not respond to Procter & Gamble or anyone else if they are asked, “Please look at the power relationship within the supply chain and how we are being disgracefully abused.”
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) spoke to new clauses 1, 2 and 3 at great length. New clause 3 gives the reality to the mission, which is at a set moment in time to get rid of the adjudicator, which would fly in the face of the advice that has come down over years from the Competition Commission and others that there is a need for such an adjudicator. Lean and mean, yes, but the hon. Member for Shipley should have some faith in the adjudicator and, having advertised the position and given her the power and set up the office on a lean, mean basis, he should allow her to decide where to investigate to achieve a good, efficient supply chain.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be criticising me for moving my new clause at great length. Does he accept that I spoke at great length because I took such a large volume of interventions, not least from him?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am in no way being critical of speaking at great length. I can extemporise for the nation myself on occasions. I do not criticise the length of time and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to expound his arguments. I have no doubt that he and colleagues who spoke in support of his new clauses believe firmly in what he was saying and believe that we should have much more of what he regards as a free market. I am not anti-free market. The hon. Gentleman may not realise it, but I spent six years working in the private sector running leisure centres, theatres and so on. I understand how the free market works. I have worked within it as a manager and as a business person. I am opposed to the approach that says that we can beggar our neighbour or have a race to the bottom.
	The hon. Member for Shipley challenged Members to go and explain to their constituents why they would argue against the cheapest possible price. I will not argue that we should have the cheapest price for every product on a supermarket shelf if that means sacrificing much-needed employment protection such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or sacrificing the standards in British agriculture of which we are rightly proud, such as animal welfare standards and so on. His argument that we should provide the very cheapest by lowering standards on food safety, food provenance, nutrition or employment rights is the argument that has previously exposed to their detriment multinational companies when they have been caught out for exploitation or low standards. We have only to think back, in a wholly different sector, to some years ago and to Nike in the previous World Cup when the very footballs on the field were being produced in sweatshop conditions in developing countries. Was that to its benefit?
	I want to speak to our amendments 34 and 35, which stand in the names of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and myself. Another illustration, if the House wants a more recent case, is the issue of food provenance and safety. No hon. Member can seriously argue that the commercial pressures along a complex supply chain have had no bearing on the entry of significant levels of adulterated meat. That is where a pure free market ideology will take us, and that is why I stand out firmly against the spirit in which the new clauses were tabled.

Justin Tomlinson: The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points, and I want to support them by gently reminding him that new clause 2 will prevent the adjudicator from supporting those very multinational companies that he seeks to name and shame.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has intrigued me. Let us say that a larger operator over the turnover steps forward to the adjudicator with evidence that does not affect it directly but affects a series of smaller suppliers right down the chain. Does he seriously suggest that the adjudicator should not be able to take action on that? I trust the adjudicator to follow the evidence and identify the power relationship if the supply chain is being abused. If the evidence comes from a larger operator, all to the good. I want the adjudicator to step in and take the right action.

Margaret Ritchie: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to protect all within the food supply chain? I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland and I am conscious of the dysfunctionality in that chain in relation to food prices, but also now in relation to food provenance and labelling.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady is right. She speaks to the spirit and the letter of the amendments, to which I will now turn my attention. Amendments 34 and 35 are critical in view of what has passed before our eyes in the time since the Bill left Committee.
	As hon. Members will know, last week, Sodexho, one of the biggest catering firms in the UK and indeed in Europe, which supplies processed meat to schools, hospitals and our armed forces, withdrew all its frozen beef products after discovering adulteration with horsemeat. This is where the race to the bottom and the aim to be the cheapest of all lead us, when the cost of horsemeat going into mince is a quarter of that of good British beef, without appropriate regulation—and enforcement of that regulation.
	People may say, “Well, that only affects poor people shopping the bargain ranges.” But Sodexho also supplies Royal Ascot—what was in those hors d’oeuvres that were passed around?—the Chelsea flower show and the Open golf championship. This is a major issue. In Scotland last week, schools, council leisure facilities and social care establishments were told not to use any current stocks of frozen beef products after the discovery of contaminated beef at a school in Lanarkshire.
	On Friday, the Food Standards Agency released the second tranche of test results. The first tranche of a week earlier was revealing enough. The second tranche, submitted by the food industry, revealed that one in 80 beef products had been found to contain horsemeat—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the other side of the House are discussing—like a “University Challenge” panel, they are conferring—which amendments my points relate to. They are related to amendments 34 and 35 on commercial pressures in the supply chain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South explained.
	We have also had the revelation about IKEA. Many people have visited IKEA and, on the way through its “shopping experience”, stopped to sample the meatballs. But they cannot do so at the moment as those meatballs have also been withdrawn. We now know that some catering companies have been withdrawing products on the quiet. Rather than being open, as the big supermarkets have been, and testing, they have been withdrawing products that they suspect have been adulterated before they can be tested. As the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, it is totally wrong for companies to recall suspect meat products on the quiet without telling the FSA.
	I have one final illustration of why the amendments are so critical, and it relates to evidence from LGC, which is the UK’s designated national measurement institute for chemical and biochemical analysis. It is the national reference laboratory and the host organisation for the Government’s chemist function. In short, it knows what it is talking about. It has made public its findings on the use of phenylbutazone. I shall not quote from it selectively: I shall be fair and quote its first five points, because they are critical to give the overall picture. LGC states that
	“the levels of phenylbutazone, if present in horsemeat, are thousands of times lower than any that caused adverse effect in humans…the risk is small and rare, estimated to affect perhaps one in 30,000”.
	My quick calculation suggests that one in 30,000 is about 2,000 people in the UK. LGC continues,
	“however on a precautionary basis”—
	[Interruption.] I can hear the Minister saying “Scaremongering” from a sedentary position, but these are LGC’s words. It says that
	“it is important to prevent meat containing phenylbutazone from entering the food chain because the information does not exist to set a safe level in food animals and there is a possibility of adverse effects albeit rare.”
	I have read the advice in full. Far from scaremongering, I have quoted the advice from those who advise the Government—

David Heath: It is important that people understand what that advice is and what the data suggest. It has been set out very clearly by the chief medical officer, and I do not want anyone to go away from this debate believing that one in 20,000 people are subject to serious medical consequences from consuming bute. It is clear that the highest level that could be found in food products is, by a factor of thousands—by a factor of 10(3)—lower than that shown to have any adverse consequences for human health. Moreover, those adverse consequences affect only a very small proportion of people receiving pharmaceutical doses of the drug. It is
	very important that we understand the risk factors, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent them.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that we do not want to continue this debate and that the hon. Gentleman is desperate to get back to the subject of the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. I make the point to illustrate how important this amendment is in terms of food safety and provenance. I just want to correct the record. The Minister said that it was one in 20,000, but it is roughly one in 2,000. I repeat to the Minister that the advice given directly to the Government was that
	there is a possibility of adverse effects—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Do not test my patience any more. We can both agree that you are desperate to speak to the amendment and now you are going to go back to it. We do not want to have to bring someone else in just yet, do we?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am happy that I have made the case extensively.

James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I would love to give way to the right hon. Gentleman as long as he does not seek to draw me in to contravening your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

James Paice: I do not know why on earth the hon. Gentleman thinks that I might want to draw him into confrontation with you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on a more fundamental aspect of the amendments. In an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that the whole Bill is about enforcement of the grocery code of practice. I understand his wanting to raise the horsemeat scandal whenever he can, but does he really believe that these amendments—especially amendment 34, which would require the adjudicator to report on issues of food safety, food hygiene and food authenticity—fall within the code of practice? He is proposing to extend dramatically the power of the adjudicator and the role of this legislation way beyond anything that the Competition Commission ever envisaged.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for not tempting me to infringe the guidance you have given, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	We had a great deal of debate in Committee on the ability of the groceries code adjudicator to comment on several issues concerning the supply chain. In fact, on both sides of the House, several hon. Members said that if the adjudicator were aware of abuses elsewhere they would expect the adjudicator to inform the relevant authorities. I shall be interested in the Government’s response to the amendment, but I would have thought that there would be almost an obligation on the adjudicator to report any observed abuse in the management of the
	supply chain. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South that amendments 34 and 35 are important, and we are convinced that the adjudicator should have an eye to this function as well as his or her core role on the supply chain.

Christopher Chope: I support new clause 2. In most people’s eyes the Bill was designed essentially to protect the UK supplier, particularly of fresh produce, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said. What the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has just delivered is a scaremongering speech designed to undermine British suppliers of fresh meat and produce. That is extremely regrettable.
	Last night I attended a speech given by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). His speech was entitled, “Deregulation for Growth”. I must admit to being slightly confused about what I have heard so far during this debate, because it seems to be about regulation. How, I ask the Minister, will the Bill be consistent with the Government’s growth agenda? Perhaps she will tell us when she responds.
	The Minister last night said that there was a two-for-one principle—that for every £1 of additional burden imposed through regulation, £2 of savings of regulation had to be found. That brings me to new clauses 4 and 5, which are designed to highlight the fact that the Bill as drafted will embody the law of unintended consequences writ large. It will potentially benefit suppliers not only from elsewhere in Europe, but from right across the globe, when most people who support the Bill think they are doing so in order to help the farmer down the road in the United Kingdom. That is far from the case. What will happen is that the Bill will enable suppliers from overseas to exploit our system, at a time when our own suppliers and producers are not able to access overseas markets on an equivalent basis.

Peter Bone: I am sure my hon. Friend is going to explain new clause 4 in more detail. I am troubled by the way it is drafted, as it says
	“if they have their principal headquarters outside the European Union.”
	Why not outside the United Kingdom?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend anticipates the argument that I am going to put. I was in discussion about whether an amendment referring only to “outside the United Kingdom” would be in order and selectable. On advice—obviously, I am responsible for deciding whether to act on advice—I decided that my new clause was much more likely to be selected if, instead of referring to the United Kingdom, I referred to the European Union. That is because of single market and European Union rules. Obviously, I wanted to ensure as far as possible that my new clause would be selectable, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is saying that the whole public debate is about why cannot we buy British—buy UK food and thereby avoid the risk associated—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I gently remind Parliamentary Private Secretaries —[Interruption.] Order. A Member is speaking, and
	unfortunately every time a PPS walks past, it is at eye-level of the camera. The first time it is not too bad, but it is happening constantly. We all want to hear Mr Chope, and I am sure the PPSs would like to hear a little more from him.

Christopher Chope: The only comfort that I take is that my remarks are evidently creating such confusion on the Front Bench that Ministers need an enormous number of messages sent to them from the Box. I take some consolation from that.
	It is incumbent upon the Minister when she replies to explain how the Bill will help UK producers while not giving benefits and privileges to producers from the rest of the European Union, let alone from outside the European Union. I should like to give the Minister the maximum amount of time to respond to the debate.
	Amendment 27 seemed to be warmly endorsed from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not understand why the Opposition did not table such an amendment themselves in Committee or on Report. The amendment proposes that the Bill come into force two months after Royal Assent. Then it would be clear on the face of the Bill when it would come into force. If this is such fantastic legislation, why do we not bring it in in the normal way—the whole Bill, two months after Royal Assent? I hope the Minister will respond to those points and particularly to the powerful argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in relation to new clause 2.

Peter Bone: I shall be brief, because under the programme motion we have only half an hour left to discuss the whole of the remaining stages of the Bill. The programme motion has been proved to be hopeless, as we will not even get to the next group of amendments.
	I refer the House to my entry in the register. I cannot quite relate to the supermarket industry, but I can relate to the travel industry, where the margins are similar and the competition levels are as great, and there are a number of big suppliers who put pressure on smaller suppliers. In my day, I was one of those smaller suppliers, but I did not come across the practices that have been described as happening in the supermarkets, where there have been nasty attempts to force the use of the hauliers demanded by the supermarkets. I did not come across such things, so I accept that this is a very different case.
	The whole House supports the small producers, who are unfairly penalised by the actions of very large supermarkets. However, the House should not be united in giving support to companies that may be even greater than the supermarkets. I am attracted by and minded to support new clause 2, unless the Minister—and a very fine Minister she is, too—can persuade the House that there is some fundamental reason not to support it. It is possible that having listened to arguments from all parts of the House, she will say that the Government accept new clause 2.
	That is the sort of thing that I would like to see more often in Parliament when reasoned cases are made which do not in any way affect what the Government
	want. In fact, new clause 2 enhances what the Government want. If big companies are excluded from being able to use the adjudicator, that will allow the adjudicator more time and allow the adjudicator to reach decisions more quickly on the small suppliers that matter. That is why I intervened on the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I wanted to see whether there was a reason why we should not adopt new clause 2. I see no reason why we should not go ahead and accept it. I hope the Minister will do that, but if not, I am minded to support it in a Division.

Jo Swinson: I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on this series of amendments and for tabling the amendments, through which we have discussed and probed various issues.
	It might be helpful to recap briefly on why we are here, which relates to the reasons why I may have to disappoint hon. Members and not be able to accept their amendments—that is, the purpose of the groceries code adjudicator and how we have come to the Bill before us. That relates to the Competition Commission report, which found that although the market was functioning effectively in delivering low prices to consumers, some practices by large retailers could have an anti-competitive effect.
	The Competition Commission found that, through buyer power, the large retailers were engaging in practices that transferred excessive risk and unexpected costs to their suppliers, and that this in turn could reduce the incentive of suppliers to invest and innovate, which would act against the long-term interests of consumers. It is worth noting that all six members of the Competition Commission group who undertook the market investigation into groceries agreed that the transfer of excessive risks or unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers is likely to lessen suppliers’ incentives to invest in new capacity, products and production processes. If unchecked, those practices would ultimately have a detrimental effect on consumers. Paragraph 11.375 of the commission’s report states clearly that all but one member of the investigation panel considered the adjudicator essential for the monitoring and enforcement of the code and that the code on its own would not be enough. That relates to the points my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised earlier.
	The Competition Commission’s report is absolutely key. It created the groceries supply order and the code is derived from it, and that is what needs to be enforced by the adjudicator. That is why the Government will resist the amendments that would encourage the adjudicator to deviate from the report.
	It is worth mentioning that creating the adjudicator was in all three major parties’ manifestos. It has been endorsed by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is appropriate at this moment to report to the House that, following our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee and other representations, pre-appointment scrutiny by the Select Committee will now happen. I am delighted that the Government have been able to accommodate that request, because such scrutiny from a Select Committees is welcome, leads to better legislation and strengthens Parliament.

Philip Davies: Is the Minister saying that she is incapable of making her own decision and exercising her own judgment and that she believes that her role is simply to rubber-stamp what the Competition Commission and a Select Committee say and leave all other critical faculties at home?

Jo Swinson: No, but I think that it is very important to listen to Parliament, as I have outlined. Indeed, I think that was the point that some of my hon. Friend’s colleagues made earlier.
	A code without an adjudicator is, to borrow an analogy from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), like a sports match with a rule book but no referee. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) described the climate of fear, which can mean that suppliers are unwilling to come forward, and that is why the independent adjudicator is necessary.
	New clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5, which were tabled by a combination of the hon. Members for Shipley, for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), would all restrict the operation of the adjudicator so that it would be less extensive than the coverage provided by the code, either by excluding suppliers above a certain turnover or excluding supplies from outside the EU. I do not think that in principle that is a sensible approach to take. As I have said, the groceries code was put in place by the Competition Commission, after a detailed and thorough investigation, to rectify certain features of the groceries market that were causing long-term detriment to consumers. The adjudicator’s prime purpose is to enforce the code, so it is sensible and coherent that they and the code should have the same coverage.
	With regard to the suggestion in new clause 2 that suppliers with a large turnover should be excluded, it is important to point out that the Competition Commission and the Select Committee explicitly considered that and concluded that excluding certain suppliers would not be appropriate. The Committee stated in its report that such an approach “would be impractical” and that because GSCOP applies to suppliers of all sizes, so should its monitoring enforcement. The Committee stated that the adjudicator is the gateway to the dispute resolution procedure, so with no access to the adjudicator large suppliers would have only the courts for redress, not the arbitration process, which is also very helpful. If the evidence from large suppliers on whether retailers are complying cannot be taken into account, smaller suppliers—this point was made earlier by other hon. Members—might also lose out because the evidence might be crucial to the case. According to the Select Committee, large suppliers might be better able to bring widespread potential breaches to the adjudicator’s attention than small suppliers. For all those reasons, it is important that the scope of the adjudicator fits that of the code.
	We had many discussions on whether we should restrict who can complain. In Committee and in the earlier pre-legislative scrutiny those discussions centred on whether trade associations should be allowed to complain. We have decided to allow evidence from any source whatever. Ruling out evidence from particular sources would weaken the adjudicator, which I suspect might be the intention of the amendment, given that it has been tabled by those who do not want the adjudicator to be in place at all.

Peter Bone: The Minister is quite wrong on that. I am not coming from that position; I came to that view after listening to the debate. Does she not fear that there is a danger that allowing large suppliers to go to the adjudicator will clog up the system so that it cannot look after small suppliers, which is what it is supposed to do?

Jo Swinson: I do not believe that is the case. The adjudicator will obviously be able to make their own assessments. The industry is confident that there will be very few complaints, and I wholeheartedly hope that will be the case, but if we find that there are many breaches of the code, and if the evidence comes from a variety of sources, the adjudicator will need to look at that and be empowered to make recommendations and requests, and they will need to be properly and adequately resourced in order to do so. Therefore, an arbitrary restriction on who can complain would actually make the adjudicator’s life harder and, indeed, could increase the risk of judicial review, so we will reject the new clause and encourage hon. Members to oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.
	The hon. Member for Shipley seemed to suggest that the provision would cost consumers more money, but all the supermarkets that gave evidence on the matter said, when asked, that complying with the code had not caused them to raise prices, so his concerns are misplaced. This will not cost consumers. Indeed, surveys have shown that 84% of consumers support the adjudicator, and I am sure that hon. Members will be well aware from their mail bags that there is a great deal of public support for the adjudicator.

Ian Murray: The Minister is making a compelling case for the Bill, which we all support. I wonder whether she will reflect on the fact that some of the evidence we received in Committee and before showed that the groceries code and a well-functioning adjudicator will help innovation in the supply chain sector and therefore has the opportunity to lower prices for the consumer.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Competition Commission was very clear that innovation could be stifled by the potential anti-competitive practices in the sector, so it absolutely follows that encouraging innovation by ensuring that no anti-competitive practices are going on will allow consumers ultimately to get a better deal, and that is in their interests.
	A few red herrings were put forward on the question of whether Esso and tobacco companies would be protected in some way by this. I refer hon. Members, as the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) did, to the Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009, which is very clear. It states, on page 3:
	“Groceries means food (other than that sold for consumption in the store), pet food, drinks (alcoholic and non-alcoholic, other than that sold for consumption in the store), cleaning products, toiletries and household goods, but excludes petrol, clothing, DIY products, financial services, pharmaceuticals, newspapers, magazines, greetings cards, CDs, DVDs, videos and audio tapes, toys, plants, flowers, perfumes, cosmetics, electrical appliances, kitchen hardware, gardening equipment, books, tobacco and tobacco products”.
	That is what was found to be relevant through the Competition Commission’s investigation. I think that it is important to note for the record that some of those earlier red herrings were just that.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore said that the adjudicator’s office would not involve huge costs. It is estimated that the costs of running it, including all running costs and staff salaries, will be £800,000 a year. As for how much of that is for the adjudicator themselves, they are currently acting as adjudicator-designate for one day a week on £23,000 a year, going up to three days a week on the same rate once we have Royal Assent and commencement, as we very much hope we will.
	On new clauses 4 and 5, it is fundamentally right that large supermarkets should treat their suppliers fairly wherever those suppliers are located. The Competition Commission’s finding of decreased innovation and investment in the supply chain is likely to result from unfair treatment of suppliers and to cause detriment to consumers, regardless of whether those suppliers are outside the EU or the UK. Excluding overseas suppliers would therefore not be helpful to the fundamental purpose of the provision and would, indeed, undermine it. The code and the adjudicator complement each other and so they need to have the same scope. I resisted in Committee amendments that would have expanded the adjudicator’s role beyond merely enforcing the code, but I must now also resist amendments that would limit the adjudicator’s scope to being narrower than the code. I hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw their amendments, but if they choose not to do so I will advise colleagues to vote against them.
	I turn to amendments 34 and 35, tabled by the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Ogmore. I absolutely recognise and share the outrage of MPs and the public about the recent horsemeat scandal. Of course it is wholly unacceptable if people buy products marked as beef that turn out to contain horsemeat. Consumers must be the absolute priority, and they need to be confident in the food they buy. The safety issues have been well explained by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). Food labelling is incredibly important. I myself suffer from a very severe allergy to nuts, and I completely rely on labels on food products being accurate in order ultimately to stop me from having a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction. There are very important reasons why this is very serious and is being taken as such. That is why my ministerial colleagues in DEFRA have taken strong and decisive action—action with food businesses, action in Europe, and action in tracking down the people who have caused this and bringing them to justice. As Members will know, the Food Standards Agency’s investigations have already led to arrests, and Ministers and the FSA are working with scientists, inspectors and food businesses in Britain and across Europe to ensure that this does not happen again.
	However, while those recent incidents have been appalling, they are not a matter for the adjudicator. Expanding the adjudicator’s role to consider these issues would not be
	helpful. It would lead to counter-productive duplication with the FSA; it is not where the adjudicator’s expertise will be developed; and the office is not being set up to look at competition issues. What the adjudicator does in promoting productivity and investment in the food chain or the supply chain might help to create an environment where such scandals are less likely to happen, but that is the extent of their role in the current horsemeat scandal; it is very different from their actually enforcing these matters.
	On reporting, in Committee we had requests for a variety of different issues to be included in the adjudicator’s report, such as available resources, recommendations to the Office of Fair Trading, and monitoring compliance. It was even suggested that they should have to report on cartel activity. Of course, if they came across any criminal activity they would be expected to report it to the police. However, we want to make sure that the reports will be sensible documents rather than being about a tick-box exercise with a list as long as your arm of the things that they have to include. On that basis, I ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendments. I hope they agree that I am being even-handed and consistent on the subject of the adjudicator’s scope and role.
	Amendments 30 and 33, also tabled by the hon. Members for Edinburgh South for Ogmore, are of a slightly different nature. They prescribe what the adjudicator should consider under clause 13 when they assess whether changes to the code should be recommended to the Office of Fair Trading. In Committee, a particular concern was raised about Asda and a foreign subsidiary that had been set up—I think it was called IPL. I can reassure the House that large retailers are required by the order as it stands to procure in such a way that all their subsidiaries comply with it as though they themselves were bound by it. That includes incorporating the code into supply agreements. If that did not happen, it would constitute a breach of the order by the large retailer, which is named in the order. I think that that provides protection that can give Members some reassurance.
	In Committee, we discussed at length the code’s territorial extent, and I hope that I gave substantial assurances at that time. We also discussed whether the code should be extended to intermediaries. I do not plan to revisit those arguments, but the fundamental question is whether it is appropriate to single out two particular issues for the adjudicator to focus on when considering any changes to the code. My view is that that is not the best way to progress. Clause 13 is widely drafted, and rightly so. That means that if the adjudicator considers it appropriate for any changes to be made to the groceries code, he or she—it is a she at the moment—must recommend them to the Office of Fair Trading. To single out specific issues would weaken the clause, rather than strengthen it.
	Singling out intermediaries would be particularly inappropriate, because it is unlikely that the code could be amended to include them without a further investigation by the Competition Commission. The reason for that is that the legal framework under which the order can be amended is set out in section 161 of the Enterprise Act 2002. It states that, in order for that to happen, there must be a change in circumstances—for example, a new, abusive practice by retailers—and, indeed, that that change must relate to the initial adverse effects found by the Competition Commission, namely the passing of excessive risk and unexpected cost to suppliers. It is
	unlikely that those conditions would be met with regard to intermediaries. It is more likely that this could be extended to uncover another abusive practice similar in nature and effect to those already described in the code but that was not present in the market when the Competition Commission did its initial investigation.
	This group of amendments also includes a set about the operation and review of the adjudicator. Amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would require the OFT to respond to recommendations. I do not believe that that is necessary. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has looked at what was said in Committee, where we discussed the issue in detail, but the OFT has a general duty to act reasonably, which includes a duty to respond to members of the public and other public authorities where appropriate. This is about creating a system that is not overly prescriptive for the adjudicator, while recognising that they will discharge that public duty in a responsible way.

John McDonnell: Does that mean, then, that the Minister can now place on the record that the Government expect the OFT to respond in a public, open, transparent and timely manner to any requests or recommendations by the adjudicator?

Jo Swinson: I absolutely give that assurance. If a body such as the OFT receives information, particularly from a respected public servant, we would expect it to respond appropriately as part of its general duty, but we do not want to be overly prescriptive in how we set that out in legislation. I hope that that reassurance is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and I urge him not to press his amendment.
	Amendment 28 would require the adjudicator to set out in guidance which laws will apply to arbitration and where it will be conducted. The amendment is superfluous, because it would duplicate information that is already in the groceries supply order. We discussed arbitration in Committee, as did the other place when it debated the Bill. Article 11 of the order sets out the rules that will apply and the fact that
	“the seat or legal place of arbitration will be London…or such other city within the United Kingdom as the Supplier nominates.”
	Of course, the adjudicator may choose to publish guidance on arbitration, but we do not believe that it is necessary to make that a requirement under the Bill.

Peter Bone: Is my hon. Friend at all contrite about the fact that we will not reach the second and third group of amendments?

Jo Swinson: No, I am not. We have had an interesting debate, although I suspect it could have been more concise; nevertheless, we are where we are.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) tabled amendment 27 on commencement. I am happy to make a commitment that the Government intend commencement to take place two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is, however, usual procedure not to set that out in legislation, but to allow the Secretary of State discretion to commence an Act by order.
	Finally, I cannot accept, in fact or in spirit, new clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley. I agree that we do not want statutory offices to continue when they are not needed, and the Government
	have been working according to that principle. Indeed, in accordance with our general policy on sunsetting, the Bill’s sunset clause—clause 15—means that the Secretary of State must review the adjudicator every three years and may decide, if appropriate, to abolish the office. However, proposing an arbitrary end to the Act is not appropriate. If, in seven years’ time, the problems with large retailers that have led to the creation of the Bill and the adjudicator persist, we would not want the Act to be repealed automatically. I reassure Members that the Secretary of State will be rigorous in reviewing this matter. I believe that that is a much better way to ensure that statutory offices do not continue unnecessarily.
	I hope that hon. Members are satisfied with my assurances and explanations, and that they will not press their amendments. If that is not the case, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments before us.

Philip Davies: We have had a good debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have supported my proposals. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) who, as he has made clear, came to listen to the debate before making his mind up. He has decided that if new clause 2 was not accepted, we would be in the ludicrous situation whereby retailers with a turnover of more than £1 billion will be subject to the code, but can be taken to the adjudicator by suppliers with a turnover of more than £1 billion who are perfectly big and capable enough to look after their own interests and to take any disputes to court.
	Unfortunately, while my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough came to the debate with an open mind, the Minister did not. She made it abundantly clear that she had already decided what the Government’s view was and that the Report stage of the Bill was a completely pointless exercise. Perhaps that is why we have had only three hours to discuss all of today’s proposals. She made it abundantly clear that she was not prepared to listen to the debate or to any arguments because the Competition Commission had told her what she should say and she was not prepared to deviate from that. That makes a farce of having Report stages of Bills. I will allow her to reflect on that.
	We cannot allow it to stand that we will be setting up an adjudicator to which multinational companies with a turnover of more than £1 billion will be able to go to make complaints against retailers that also have a turnover of more than £1 billion. We should deliver the best deal for our constituents, not add to the bottom line of big multinational corporations. For that reason, I wish to withdraw new clause 1, but to press new clause 2 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Supplier turnover

‘Suppliers are not allowed to refer cases to the Adjudicator and cannot have cases referred on their behalf if their turnover exceeds £1bn per annum.’.—(Philip Davies.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 6, Noes 448.

Question accordingly negatived.
	More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 13
	 — 
	Recommendations to Office of Fair Trading

Amendment proposed: 3,page5,line18, at end insert—
	‘(2) The Office of Fair Trading shall be required to publish a response to the Adjudicator on the recommendations set out in subsection (1) explaining whether they will be acted upon or not.’.—(John McDonnell.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 200, Noes 253.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Annual Report

Amendment proposed: 34,page5,line31, at end insert—
	‘(4A) The report must include details of any incidents that have come to the Adjudicator’s attention during the reporting period in which breaches of the Groceries Code or commercial pressure on retailers have led or may have led to actual or potential cases of compromised—
	(a) food safety;
	(b) food hygiene; and
	(c) food authenticity.’.—(Ian Murray.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 198, Noes 252.

Question accordingly negatived
	.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Review of Adjudicator and guidance from Secretary of State

Amendments made: 7,page6,line13, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	‘(5) The review must also consider whether it would be desirable—
	(a) for an order to be made under subsection (10A) (if no order under that subsection is in force), or
	(b) for any order under that subsection to be revoked.’.
	Amendment 8,page6, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
	‘(10A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this Act has effect as if the section set out in subsection (11) below were inserted after section 4.
	(10B) An order under subsection (10A)—
	(a) may be made only if, as a result of the findings of a review, the Secretary of State thinks that making the order would enable the Adjudicator to be more effective;
	(b) may be revoked only if, as a result of the findings of a review, the Secretary of State thinks that revoking the order would not impair the Adjudicator’s effectiveness.
	(11) This is the section referred to in subsection (10A)—’.—(Jo Swinson.)

Clause 23
	 — 
	Orders

Amendment made: 9,page10,line35, after ‘section’, insert ‘15(10A) or’.—(Jo Swinson.)
	Third Reading

David Heath: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Before I go any further, I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their help in shaping this Bill, which is important to my Department and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, where my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is Under-Secretary. It is something of a cliché on these occasions to say that the Bill has been improved by debate, but I genuinely feel that that has been the case with this Bill. It has also been helped by the sense of common purpose in the House for making progress on it.

Adrian Bailey: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: Of course I will. I was going to say something nice about the hon. Gentleman later, but he may prevent my doing that now—I hope not.

Adrian Bailey: I hope that my remarks will not preclude that. In my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills I often need to berate Ministers for not doing what the Committee’s in-depth research has demonstrated to be necessary. On this occasion, although the Under-Secretary had concerns about some of our recommendations, on reflection she pretty much adopted whatever the Committee said was appropriate. Just as I berate Ministers on occasion, I want publicly to thank the Under-Secretary for her flexibility and reasonableness.

Nigel Evans: Order. Before the Minister answers that rather lengthy intervention, bordering on a speech, I remind the House that this business must be completed by 4.45 pm. If any interventions are to be made, can they be short, please?

David Heath: Thank you for that timely reminder, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief in my list of thanks.
	I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) for what he just said. I also thank his Committee and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their work on improving the Bill.
	I want to start with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, as the hon. Gentleman says, has done a superb job of listening to people as the Bill has made progress. She took up a baton that was already well on its way thanks to her predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, to the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and to my immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I can exclusively
	reveal that there was a conspiracy within government, of which I was part in my previous role as Deputy Leader of the House, to ensure that the Bill made progress whatever other priorities arose as we all felt that it was important.
	I also want to mention the contribution of a few others who are not in government. It was a delight to find myself so often in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), and he has campaigned vigorously for the measure as chair of the grocery market action group. I stood shoulder to shoulder with him when we were in opposition to make it a reality and his efforts have been appreciated. I hope he feels that they have been rewarded as the Bill reaches the statute book.
	The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has long pressed for the adjudicator, including in his private Member’s Bill. His pleas fell on deaf ears at the time, but now all is sweetness and light and the Opposition are united with us in taking the Bill forward. I should add, as I am trying to be as consensual as possible, that I know from what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench made debates in Committee enjoyable and that they made a genuine contribution. As they know, we have listened to what they have had to say and have on occasion been able to agree with them. That goes for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who often secretly agree with me but sometimes cannot express it openly—

Ian Murray: Give examples!

David Heath: I could not possibly; it would embarrass the hon. Member for Ogmore too much.
	Now that I have awarded bouquets around the House, I want simply to say that the Bill establishes an adjudicator to enforce the groceries supply code of practice. As recommended by the Competition Commission’s market investigation in 2008, the adjudicator will ensure that large retailers treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly. The adjudicator will be able to receive anonymous complaints from any source and may decide to launch an investigation if it is felt that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the code has been broken. We anticipate there will be around two to four investigations per year and if the adjudicator is satisfied that the code has been broken, a range of sanctions will be available. The adjudicator can make recommendations to a retailer, require it to publish details of the breach, and, in the most egregious cases, impose a financial penalty.
	We also announced our preferred candidate for the adjudicator last month. Christine Tacon has a wide range of experience in the groceries sector, has held senior corporate roles in retailers and direct suppliers and spent 11 years as managing director of Co-operative Farms, the largest farming operation in the UK. Members will be pleased to note that she will undergo her pre-appointment hearing with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee tomorrow, although Ministers retain the final decision on her appointment. We are confident, and we hope that the Committee agrees, that she will be an excellent adjudicator.
	We are satisfied that we have given the adjudicator sufficient powers to enforce the code effectively and during pre-legislative scrutiny we broadened our drafting so that the adjudicator could receive information from any source, giving us a good Bill. At the urging of hon. Members on Second Reading, we tabled amendments in Committee to give her the powers to impose fines from the outset. On Report we proposed additional safeguards in relation to clause 15(11) to cover the Secretary of State’s powers to restrict the information on which the adjudicator can start an investigation.
	At every step along the way we have improved the Bill, and we now have a Bill of which the House can be proud. The Government have listened to the concerns of hon. Members from all parties to ensure that we create the most effective adjudicator possible, and we believe that we have now achieved that goal. I am delighted to note that a press release from the grocery market action group on 8 February announced in large letters:
	“Fair Trade campaigners say Supermarket Watchdog has teeth.”
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wanted a watchdog with teeth and even brought the visual aids to support that contention on Second Reading.
	We have done our work. I believe that we have a good Bill. I commend it to the House. The sooner we get this adjudicator in place, the better it will be for our producers, consumers and retailers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Before I call Ian Murray, I should say that a lot of hon. Members want to speak, and the debate has to finish at 4.45 pm. No pressure on you there, Mr Murray.

Ian Murray: I will be quick, but let me start by returning the thanks to the Front-Bench team—the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who I recall on Second Reading stamped her authority and said that we would not have fines in the Bill. We now have fines. They stamped their authority in Committee and said that they would not send the appointment of the adjudicator to the BIS Select Committee because it would be a dereliction of their parliamentary duty and was not an important enough position to be subject to a Select Committee pre-appointment hearing. I am delighted that Ministers have come round to our way of thinking. I am also delighted that they came round to the way of thinking of the other place by putting trade associations into the Bill. The Bill is far better now than when it first entered the House, and the Ministers listened to some close analysis and persuasion from the Opposition.
	Let me right a wrong that happened in Committee. It is traditional at the end of Committee proceedings to thank all the officials, the Chair and everyone who has been involved in the Committee. I forgot to thank one person—my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—when I was wrapping up the Committee. He has done more in the House than many to get us to where we are today, and I would like to right that wrong
	by putting on record my thanks to him for everything that he has done and, of course, for his wonderful speech earlier today.
	I have tried twice to thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) both in the Chamber on Second Reading and in Committee. Just before thanking him, he popped up and threw a wobbler at me of some description. I am delighted that I have been able to thank him today without him doing that.
	Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) first brought the matter to the House in his private Member’s Bill, and it should be a proud moment for him today as we send the Bill to the palace for Royal Assent. The last two thanks are to everyone who served on the Committee. We had lively debates. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has not taken the opportunity to be in the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, had been on her feet for only about 20 seconds in Committee when my hon. Friend popped up and suggested that we should call the new adjudicator Oftrolley. I could not let the moment pass without putting it on record that I am disappointed that he is not here.
	We have used a lot of terminology such as “toothless tiger”, and there was a danger that the Bill would be that. The Bill now has teeth. There are still some things that Opposition Members would have added to the Bill, but unfortunately that has not come to pass. We hope that the Ministers will be amenable to changing the way in which the adjudicator works as the process beds in. There are problems with the code itself. The hon. Member for—is it East Bedfordshire?

Mark Spencer: Sherwood.

Ian Murray: Sherwood, of course. I was not even in the right part of the country. The hon. Gentleman used the example in Committee of the dairy farmers dispute. In fact, that dispute would not have been covered even if the adjudicator had been in place, because there had not been a breach of the code. That example was interesting in terms of trying to keep the code live and make sure it is as responsive to the industry as possible—not just to the suppliers. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made some important points. It needs to be responsive to the supermarkets. They make such a considerable contribution to our economy, and we must not forget the role they play. The code has to be responsive to their needs too.
	We set three tests for the Bill at the outset, and we have met all of them. We are a little disappointed on intermediaries and supply chain issues, and I hope that Ministers will reflect on those. I gave a commitment on Second Reading and in Committee that we would work constructively with the Government to make this a better Bill. We have done that and we have got a better Bill. Everyone who has been involved in this process for far longer than I have been should be very proud tonight that we will have an adjudicator and, I hope, a far better supply chain and a far better supermarket market.

Mark Spencer: I shall just take 60 seconds to add my congratulations to those on the Front Bench for introducing this Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys
	Môn (Albert Owen) who, before I was a Member of Parliament, had pushed this issue forward through a private Member’s Bill. It is worth noting that it took a change in Government for the Bill to receive Government support, and the coalition should be proud that it has managed to introduce legislation that will level the playing field.
	All hon. Members can support fair play, and it is worth reminding everyone that the Bill is not about an adjudicator poking their nose into a private deal or relationship between a supplier and retailer. It is about ensuring that, after they have done the deal, they all stick to the rules and play by the book. I am very proud that the coalition Government have introduced the Bill and will get it on to the statute book. I look forward to fair play in the retail sector.

Albert Owen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). The Minister was right to congratulate those he named in his speech, but he was wrong to say that my private Member’s Bill fell on deaf ears. It fell on some deaf ears among the Liberal Democrats, some in the Conservative party and, yes, some in my party. But I was able to build a consensus on the issue. The reason it did not reach the statute book—as you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, as someone who was on the Committee for its very quick single sitting—was that occupational hazard for Members of Parliament known as a general election. But before the election we were able to get all three parties—and some minority parties—to put it into their manifestos. So whoever became the Government would have taken the issue forward.
	On Second Reading, I said that the Minister would go down in the folklore of the grocery industry for introducing the Bill. We needed a proper adjudicator. The code had been in place for some time, and nobody argued the need for it, but we had to argue the need for a referee. I single out the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for his opposition to what was happening at the time. I worked closely with him on my private Member’s Bill, which he sponsored. Indeed, we had sponsors from the entire country.
	The Bill is good for consumers, good for producers and good for supermarkets. The supermarkets will come to terms with it in the future and will wonder what the fuss was all about. The adjudicator will be fair, independent and give us all confidence in the future. I do not have time to go on, but I want to thank everyone involved, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and others. This is a proud day for the whole industry and we can be proud that we have reached consensus and that the adjudicator will be put in place with the necessary tools to do the job.

James Paice: I add my congratulations to everyone involved from the early days, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). The Minister said that it was a great pleasure to find himself in the same Lobby as the hon. Gentleman: for me it was more of a shock. Nevertheless, it was welcome and I am delighted that the Bill will now make progress.
	Many people have portrayed the Bill as supermarket knocking or bashing. I hope that it is not seen as that. Supermarkets play a fantastic role. They have brought before the consumer a great range of products that might never otherwise have been available, in a competitive environment. However, there are people within the supermarket structures, as I touched on in an earlier intervention, who are perhaps acting with excessive zeal and, I am quite certain, going outside the terms of the code. I am not at all surprised if people much higher up the management structures are not aware of what is being done lower down by those who want to make their names as competitive buyers. I hope the Bill will be sufficient to ensure that such malpractices are stamped out, because I am sure they are not what most people want to see. As I said earlier, I feel particularly strongly about the fresh produce world, where these problems are most evident.
	Finally, there is a long-held cynical view that any legislation that has all-party support is by definition bad. I hope that this proves to be the exception to that rule. There is some justification for that belief about many other pieces of legislation, but I believe the House is right to have approved this one with such a massive majority over and over again, and I look forward to it fulfilling all the hopes that people have of it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I applaud the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for their handling of the Bill. They gave way in areas where there was compelling evidence and pressure to do so; they resisted in areas where they felt it appropriate to do so. That is what Ministers should do while we keep pushing hard on issues that we think they should listen to and argue strongly against. They have been sympathetic. They have not given way on everything, but the Bill is improved and I commend them for the way that they have stewarded it.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his thanks to me to allow me to put on the record my thanks to the officials Iain, Heeran and Richard, who have served us so excellently, and to thank them also for their Christmas present to me of some plastic teeth to go with the cuddly dog and tiger for my office.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad I gave way to give the Minister the opportunity to convey her thanks to the officials.
	I thank our Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), whose role has been significantly underplayed. He has worked extremely hard both on the Front Bench and behind the scenes to get us to where we are today. I thank the Committee members, many of whom volunteered to serve on the Committee because of their specific interest in the Bill. That is highly commendable. Tribute has rightly been paid to the contribution down the years of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and of
	my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). It is a great day that they now see the Bill going on to the statute book.
	The external organisations that lobbied so hard are too numerous to mention, but the British Retail Consortium, Action Aid, War on Want and all the farmers unions from every part of the United Kingdom all played a tremendous role, as did many others that I do not have time to name.
	We wish the adjudicator well and hope they never have to name and shame, impose fines or carry out an investigation. We hope their very presence will instil a discipline within the supply chain, but if not, the remedy now exists.

Andrew George: Following the contribution from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), may I say that despite the consensus, which is often considered a weakness, the Bill is an excellent example of how a measure can be significantly improved during the parliamentary process?
	In congratulating the many people who have been involved in the Bill’s progress, my hon. Friend the Minister of State may have left out the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). During his brief sojourn in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, he introduced a very significant change, which enabled the adjudicator to initiate an inquiry on the basis of market intelligence.
	I add my thanks to all those involved. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has been very kind, and I hope I did not bite his hand off when he was offering those thanks. I should also like to thank the previous Member for South East Cornwall, Colin Breed, who highlighted the issue more than a decade ago. There are many more people who should be thanked. I have met the adjudicator-elect, Christine Tacon, and was very impressed.
	If the supermarkets have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. They should embrace this, because I believe that the adjudicator can do something to improve fair trading in this country.

Philip Davies: What a nauseating love-in! We have this ridiculous idea that the adjudicator will be good for suppliers, good for supermarkets and good for consumers —a painless panacea all round. We are told that suppliers and supermarkets will have money while consumers will pay less. What a lot of old guff. If anyone believes that, they will believe absolutely anything. Basically, this will—
	Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading (By Order)

Mark Field: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill would make some relatively minor changes to street trading controls in the City of London and to the law on the walkways within the square mile. The only place where street trading can take place in the City is on Middlesex street, as part of the famous Petticoat lane market. The limitation on street trading can be traced back over a century and is reflected in the City’s current local legislation, which confines such activities to the street market on Middlesex street.
	The reason for the City’s particular code lies in its demography—it is primarily a business area, not a residential one—and the unique demands that that imposes. As hon. Members will be well aware, the City was not always almost entirely a place of offices and of the commercial sphere. Until the rise of the railways, it was a significant residential area. It was home to more than 130,000 residents in 1801, but there was a precipitate drop as the railways emerged in the 1830s and 1840s, and the impact of the second world war, in particular, ensured that much of the residential population is now in the Barbican area.
	However, London’s attractiveness as a tourist destination and the greater accessibility of the St Paul’s area via the Millennium bridge from Tate Modern at Bankside brings large numbers of tourists on a daily and hourly basis from south of the river. That has meant an increased demand for retail development around New Change and some retail development in the Broadgate area, and I suspect that before the world is too much older there may yet be further retail development in the area around Aldgate. It is development in the area around St Paul’s cathedral, in particular, and the New Change area adjacent to it, that has prompted a review of the existing code. The aim has been to try to meet the needs that the changes are generating while at the same time preserving the essentially business environment that the City needs in order to prosper.
	In consequence, the City of London corporation now wants to utilise the Bill to liberalise the regime in two specific respects. First, the Bill is designed to enable temporary street trading licences to be issued to enable the use of public thoroughfares, such as Cheapside, for street markets and similar events. The new retail development at New Change, beside St Paul’s, aims to attract shoppers not just during the week, but at weekends. It provides a particular prompt because such liberalisation would enable promotional activities to be held. Of course, the timing of such events would have to be carefully managed because, as is well known, the City is relatively empty on most weekends.
	Secondly, the Bill would allow ice cream and related products to be sold outside food premises. That, too, is prompted by increased tourist demand, particularly in the vicinity of St Paul’s. It is difficult to imagine the consumption of ice cream as an attraction at the moment, given the cold winter we are having, but I hope that it will be only a matter of weeks or, being pessimistic, months until that will prove extremely welcome.
	These new regulatory changes are balanced by provisions for more effective enforcement of the street trading controls, including an increase in the maximum fine to the level that applies elsewhere in London and extension into the City of the powers available in other London boroughs to seize goods and property used in connection with unlawful street trading. I am well aware that that power of seizure may not be liked by all colleagues, even by some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). However, it reflects the powers that are available in the rest of London, although I should point out that it does not go as far as the powers that are available in the City of Westminster or even in the London borough of Wandsworth. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware of those powers. Street trading in the City is very limited in scope, but where it does exist effective provisions are needed to control it.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend will be aware that other Bills recently debated in this House, including the Nottingham City Council Bill, the Canterbury City Council Bill, the Reading Borough Council Bill and the Leeds City Council Bill, all contained similar provisions to those contained in this Bill, but they were cut out when those Bills were considered in the other place, and those amendments were accepted by this House. Why is the City of London holding out against this?

Mark Field: As I said, there is a case to be made that the City of London is a different sort of local authority in a different sort of area given the preponderance of office space rather than residential space and its character as a business quarter. The corporation has tried to ensure that we encourage tourism. It is obviously in everyone’s interests to have a large amount of tourism throughout the UK, and attractions such as St Paul’s cathedral will remain of global importance. However, there is also a recognition that the square mile—the area of the City of London—is rather unusual in this regard. Therefore, the very limited changes proposed in the Bill should apply to the City despite the great efforts that my hon. Friend has made to ensure that such changes are not made in places as far flung as Reading, Canterbury and Nottingham.
	These powers are intended not least to deal with the problem of ice cream vans trading illegally in the City—a rather small category of pedlarship, as my hon. Friend will recognise. These illegal traders have given rise to numerous complaints from the public, from schools, from businesses, and indeed from the chapter of St Paul’s cathedral. The City has brought cases against some traders, but the maximum fines that can be imposed have not, on their own, been adequate to deter this activity. That is why we are moving beyond the idea of a maximum fine to try to create a new power of seizure so that we can properly enforce the rules that are already in place.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give the House some idea of how many prosecutions of ice cream van traders there have been in the past year?

Mark Field: I shall endeavour to do so when we get into Committee, where we will have the full details.
	The reason why prosecution is such an ineffective means of dealing with these things is that the fines are so derisory. The fine is currently set at level 2—only £500—and we are trying to raise it to the new maximum level of £1,000. However, even at that level it is so nugatory that the power of seizure would be more effective. As my hon. Friend is aware, the sheer cost of starting a legal action is outweighed manifold by the moneys that can be brought in through fines.
	The European Union services directive has been raised in connection with the Canterbury City Council Bill and other recent local Bills. I thought that it might be helpful if I went into that in a little more detail than I had intended at this stage, having been prompted to do so by a brief discussion with my hon. Friend earlier. As Members are well aware, the EU services directive came into force on 28 December 2009. In respect of the City of London, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills accepted in correspondence some two years ago that the general prohibition on street trading can stay. It stated:
	“We think that, by virtue of recital 9 to the Directive, there is a reasonable argument that a complete prohibition on street trading, as is the current situation in the City, except in respect of Middlesex Street is not caught by the directive at all (and so does not need to be analysed against the requirements of the Directive).”
	Baroness Wilcox raised three issues on Second Reading in the Lords. One of them is pertinent to this debate and I will put it on the record, because I know that my hon. Friend would want to address and it would make sense for me to do so now rather than in response to further interventions. The issue is whether a provision restricting ice cream street sales to a business occupier might indirectly be discriminatory against temporary service providers who have no established premises in the UK. I accept that this remains a live issue to an extent.
	BIS set out some of the concerns in correspondence in July 2011 and suggested that most business occupiers in the City would be UK nationals or companies, and that the provision could therefore be seen to be indirectly discriminatory. The Department also recognised that for temporary service providers—in other words, someone who is not established here—the requirement is not likely to meet the directive’s necessity and proportionality principles. Indeed, the Department suggested that we take independent legal advice on the issue and, following a meeting with BIS in September 2011, the City corporation sought the opinion of leading counsel, which was sent to BIS in the past few weeks. On 14 February, BIS indicated that it “may disagree” with the opinion and confirmed as much on 19 February, but without giving any reasons beyond stating that the opinion had not changed its view that clause 9 is likely to be considered as indirectly discriminatory in the context of service provision.
	I hope the House will forgive me if I go into some detail, not just on leading counsel’s case, but more importantly on why we feel that this issue could and should properly be dealt with in Committee rather than by delaying this Second Reading. Leading counsel’s advice was, in summary, that the intended beneficiaries of the Bill are sellers or suppliers of food who are being allowed to trade a little way outside the premises that they occupy, that the commercial activity taking place
	in the street is a spill-over from that which is carried out in the associated premises, and that it is, therefore, clearly distinguishable from the right to sell ice cream as a street trader. As a result, such activity is subject to provisions on the freedom of establishment in the EU services directive. The counsel further advised that that is compatible with the provision in the services directive, as there is no restriction on who may open a food business in the City.
	Likewise, the Bill does not make it any harder to open such establishments. In fact, many of the food businesses in the City of London are operated by nationals of other member states. Indeed, anyone who has tried to buy a coffee or a sandwich in a shop in the City will know that it is almost impossible to find anyone who is not a national of another state working in such an establishment.
	For the specific purposes of this Second Reading, we strongly believe—I hope that this will satisfy my hon. Friend—that this does not affect any of the Bill’s provisions, particularly the provision of temporary street trading licences, about which I will say more in a moment. Therefore, the corporation will seek the views of businesses and discuss the issue with them. As has been said, similar elements were struck out of Bills relating to Canterbury, Reading and Nottingham, but we feel that there is a special case for the City of London and, given counsel’s opinion, we hope that we will prevail in Committee. This matter has been properly considered and should be fully examined in Committee. It should not delay the relatively smooth progress of the Bill through Second Reading.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his full explanation of the issue, but does he share my concern that a European Union directive has been incorporated into United Kingdom law and that the implications for cases such as this are not at all clear?

Mark Field: I very much share my hon. Friend’s concern about the lack of clarity and about the fact that, given that this has been in play for three years, the implications were not addressed in advance. Too much legislation from Europe seems to get through on the nod and the problems of compatibility only become apparent at a later stage. As I have said, a question remains, but we have received strong advice from leading counsel and hope that we will prevail on this matter when we examine it in Committee.
	We feel that this is a useful, minor liberalising measure that will be welcomed by those who work in the City and the countless hundreds of thousands of people who visit the City daily. The tourists come in their millions every year. I make the pledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that I will be happy to table an amendment in Committee, in conjunction with the City corporation, if it appears that the advice that we have had from legal counsel is contrary to the EU services directive. However, I hope that we can proceed with the Bill even though there is a small element of doubt in relation to the directive.

Christopher Chope: To clarify, is my hon. Friend saying that the discussions on this matter will take place before the Bill is considered in Committee so that there is time for
	it to be amended to reflect the outcome of those discussions or is he saying that any amendments will be made subsequent to Committee stage?

Mark Field: The Committee stage is clearly not imminent, so there will hopefully be time for fully fledged discussions in which the corporation can make its case robustly, given the opinion that we have received from counsel. That will provide the opportunity for amendments, but one would hope that they will not be needed and that the case can be smoothed over in advance of Committee stage. I will willingly do that on behalf of the corporation to try to get the Bill through the Committee stage, whenever such further proceedings can be arranged.
	I believe that the corporation is right in its view that the street trading provisions in the Bill are consistent with the directive. The Government, in the shape of Department for Business, Innovation and Skills officials, have indicated that they are content on two of the three main points that have been raised, although they have recently expressed concerns about the third point, which we have already discussed. Clearly, it would not be in anyone’s interest, least of all the City corporation as promoter of the Bill, to do anything that could reasonably be regarded as contrary to EU law. We therefore need to get clarification on this matter.
	I will go through the Bill in a little more detail. The substantive provisions begin with clauses 3 to 5, which make provision for temporary street trading licences. Those licences will last for up to 21 days and may be granted for any area in the City other than Middlesex street. The organisers of an event would be able to apply for a licence on behalf of any number of street traders.
	Clause 6 will bring the maximum fine for illegal street trading in the City into line with the rest of London. Currently, the maximum fine in the City is a level 2 fine of £500, whereas for the rest of London it is a level 3 fine of £1,000. That is a straightforward measure to harmonise the situation.
	Clause 7 provides for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles and goods used for the purpose of unlawful street trading. As I have said, this is in substance the same set of powers that exists in the rest of Greater London under the London Local Authorities Act 2007, which introduced a new enforcement regime into the street trading code laid down by the London Local Authorities Act 1990. Seized property may be forfeited to the court or sold to meet an award of costs on the conviction of a person for the offence. Otherwise, it must generally be returned to the person from whom it was seized. Provision is made in the Bill for the disposal of property that cannot be returned and for compensation for any unlawful seizure. Special provision is made for the return or disposal of motor vehicles or perishable items. Clause 7 also enables a fixed penalty notice to be given for illegal street trading, as can happen in the rest of Greater London and areas outside the capital.
	Clause 8 will end the need to enact a byelaw to vary the charges that apply to street traders. That procedure is so cumbersome that the charge for street traders in the City has remained unchanged for the past 24 years. It seems to me that only MPs’ salaries have remained unchanged for the same length of time. Perhaps I am exaggerating slightly. However, the charge has remained unchanged at £15, which contrasts with the charge for street trading imposed in, for example, the neighbouring
	Tower Hamlets, which is £32. I should say that Middlesex street is bisected by the boundary—it runs from north-west to south-east, and the southern side is in the City of London and the northern side in Tower Hamlets. It would make sense to harmonise the charges.

Christopher Chope: Can my hon. Friend adduce some evidence of the impact on supply and demand of having street trading charges that are below the level in Tower Hamlets?

Mark Field: I have been regularly to Petticoat lane, mainly before my time as a Member of Parliament, and it did not strike me that there was an immense difference at that time, although that was some time ago. Notwithstanding the different charges, there did not seem to be a particular disincentive to have a stall in Tower Hamlets rather than in the City of London. I should perhaps stress to my hon. Friend that the charge is designed only to reflect relevant costs, but having been set at £15 since 1989, putting it up to £32 does not seem a huge imposition on those who would trade on the City side of Middlesex street.
	Clause 9 will enable food premises to sell ice creams from stalls or dispensers on the public highway outside the premises. If approved, a stall may be set up within 15 metres of the business premises. That distance was chosen as a reasonable outer limit given the nature of the public areas in which the sale of ice cream might take place. If a location closer to the premises were deemed more appropriate by the House, I believe that could be set out by the corporation.
	Finally, clause 10 will make two small changes to the law on City walkways. I should say that walkways are neither footpaths nor highways in the conventional sense but private access ways over which the public are given a right to pass on foot. The concept was initiated by the City in a private Bill enacted as long ago as 1967. Walkways are found, for example, in the Barbican. In the immediate aftermath of the second world war, as part of the rebuilding following the bombing, there was the dream of creating the Barbican, and indeed the dream of creating a business district within the City of London with relatively few residents. Pedways were envisaged at first-floor level, not just in the Barbican but beyond. The clause will enable the corporation to impose a charge to recoup administrative costs incurred whenever a landowner requests a new declaration or a variation of a walkway. The second element of clause 10 will enable a fixed penalty notice to be issued when there is unlawful parking on a City walkway, as already occurs when there is unlawful parking on a footpath.
	The Bill is a modest measure aimed at relaxing the existing street trading code in the City of London to provide important flexibility. It will enhance the attractiveness and vitality of the City both for its residents—for the first time in more than two centuries we saw an increase in the residential population of the City of London in the most recent census—and for those work in and visit the City. As I have said, the emergence of New Change as a new shopping centre means that the City will become a more attractive place over weekends, and more and more shops there are open on Saturdays and Sundays. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Jo Swinson: I rise to speak only briefly, because as hon. Members will know, traditionally the Government neither support nor oppose private Bills unless for some reason they contain provisions that are contrary to public policy. In such cases, it is the Government’s role to bring such matters to the attention of the House, which is why I wish to set out the Government’s concern about the Bill’s compatibility with the requirements of the European services directive, to which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred. That concern was raised on Second Reading in the other place in April 2011 by the then Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Baroness Wilcox.
	Despite some developments on the issue, the promoters of the Bill have not yet been able to satisfy us that all the concerns that we raised have been satisfactorily addressed. The good news, however, is that whereas back in 2011 we had several concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with the directive, now we have only one. The remaining concern relates to clause 9, which seeks to allow only those with business premises to sell ice cream from a receptacle outside those premises. The Government’s view has been that the clause does not comply with the services directive, because it may indirectly discriminate against non-UK nationals. Our concern, therefore, remains the same as in 2011.
	However, I appreciate that the promoters of the Bill have sought external legal opinion to support their contention that clause 9 is compliant. As had been said, it has recently been given to the Department. The Government are looking at it and we hope it will be possible to reach agreement before the Committee stage. If there cannot be agreement, then in that scenario we would be compelled to submit a report to the House setting out the legal reasons why we believe that clause 9 does not comply with the services directive. I think it is helpful for the House to be aware that discussions on legal clarity are ongoing.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can she explain what would happen in that scenario? If the Government cannot agree with the promoters they will issue a report, but where would that leave us as legislators? Would that happen before the Committee stage so that the Committee is able to respond to the Government’s view, or would it be left until later? The Bill might not come back for a Report stage.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is a formal process. If the Government think there is a legal problem—that the Bill is not compatible with provisions that we are signed up to—we will report against it. We hope to be able to reach agreement before Committee, but we will keep the House informed at every stage. That will enable the House to assess these issues in the light of the Government’s advice and assessment of the legal situation. This is ongoing. The new legal opinion has been produced and must be considered properly. However, I wanted to ensure that the issue was flagged to the House so that if the Government must issue such a report, it will not be a surprise. It might well yet be that that does not come to pass.
	They are the only comments the Government wish to make on the Bill, and I am sure that the rest of the Second Reading debate will now continue.

Ian Murray: The view of the local hon. Member should be paramount on how this legislation will work. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) said that this is a modest measure that will enhance the life of the City of London. That is an important thing for the local Member to say, and I hope cognisance is taken of it.
	I have been skimming through the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will not be surprised to hear I was told that I was speaking on it shortly before the hon. Gentleman got to his feet to promote it. I am fascinated by clause 9. I think of the streets of my own city of Edinburgh, which is vibrant with street traders selling things. The clause is peculiar, given that it is limited to ice cream, but the clarity the Minister has provided on trying to resolve the issue relating to the directive is welcome. If the Bill is allowed to go to Committee and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills can find a way to resolve it, I hope the Bill will be enacted.
	A street trader licence at £15 sounds like a bargain to me. Indeed, I am sure street traders up and down the country will be wondering why it is so cheap in the City of London and not in their own patches. The Bill is limited in scope. If it means that we can all wander down the streets of the City of London and buy an ice cream from an approved receptacle or place of sale, then we are willing to support it. We do not have any objections.

Christopher Chope: It is worth reminding ourselves that if a blocking motion had not been tabled, we would not be having a Second Reading debate—it would have gone through on the nod. What we have heard so far, with the helpful explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), shows the importance of ensuring that we have a Second Reading debate on a Bill of this import. It may not affect the whole country, but it involves important principles. As we have heard, it may have an impact on national law in relation to the European Union services directive, as incorporated into United Kingdom law.
	I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) admits to having only just got to grips with the issue. There has been a lot of notice of the Bill and, as the Minister said, it was discussed in another place as recently as April 2011, so I am surprised that he did not brief himself sooner. Had he done so, he might have been in a position to help the debate, particularly on the draconian powers of seizure and forfeiture in relation to ice cream vans and receptacles used in street trading.
	It is worth considering the Bill in the context of the street trading and pedlary regime. The consultation on that regime, which the Government have said is ongoing, has been extended into the middle of next month and is designed to bring to Parliament’s attention issues arising
	from the EU services directive. When that directive was implemented, people thought it would have no impact on street trading, but it is now having such an impact that the Government are saying that the only way to ensure compliance is to abolish the pedlars legislation completely.
	The City of London regime exempts the City from some provisions of the pedlar legislation, but the Government’s agenda seems to be to do away with pedlary altogether and, given the issue about equal access to street trading, effectively to deny people the privilege of trading freely in this country on the basis of a certificate from a police authority stating that they are of good character. As was clear from the Minister’s comments, the implication might be that it indirectly discriminates against non-EU nationals, but since when have we said that there should not be some privileges associated with being a British citizen?
	That principle should be strongly upheld in the City of London. I pay tribute to the work done there. It is the heart of the British economy and over generations has exercised a form of local self-government that is an exemplar for other local authorities up and down the land. I was much involved in trying to ensure that powers to take over the City of London and make it just like any other borough were not carried.
	That brings me to my point. That there are provisions relating to street trading in other London boroughs, such as Wandsworth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred, might itself be a good reason why the City should retain its distinctive position—perhaps slightly aloof from other London boroughs. I do not know how he would describe it, but it is certainly different—and proud to be different—and just because some boroughs seem to have been heavy-handed in how they deal with enforcement and forfeiture, that is no reason why the same should apply in the City of London. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there is a reason for not being uniform or homogenised.

Mark Field: I naturally agree that the City of London is special, and perhaps aloof, in comparison to all the other London boroughs, except of course for the City of Westminster, which I also represent in the House. I would not want to upset my other city. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we already accept that, so far as pedlary is concerned, a different set of rules has applied in the City of London for more than a century. The question is: why did the City of London suddenly want to impose a maximum fine of £1,000, rather than £500, simply to harmonise with other local authorities? My fear is that even £1,000 would be insufficient as a disincentive without commensurate powers of seizure for those who persistently offend against these byelaws.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. On the question of the level of fines, I would be more impressed—although I do not blame him for the situation—if there were some hard evidence of the number of cases that had been brought to court, the number of cautions that had been given or the number of offences that had not been prosecuted for one reason or another. During our discussions on the various pedlary and street trading Bills, certain assertions have been made by the Bills’ promoters—I do not want
	to taint the Corporation of London with the problems of the others—and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend provided some evidence.

Mark Field: The sheer cost of bringing legal proceedings is exorbitant. The fact that £1,000 would be the maximum amount that a persistent offender could be fined is therefore a strong disincentive. My hon. Friend will be aware that a hamburger van or ice cream van in central London can make a huge amount of money in a very short time, given the through-flow of people on the streets. It is a matter of concern—certainly in principle, although there is not necessarily any evidence—about the numbers of people who have gone through the whole legal process, given the fact that the New Change shopping parade has now been updated. It has been up and running only for the past 18 months, but its emergence will make the City of London a more attractive proposition for a significant number of tourists at weekends. I am afraid that the area could therefore attract more illegal ice cream sellers, and it is as a result of those concerns that we feel the need to move ahead. As I have said, the City of London is no longer lacking at weekends—

Nigel Evans: Order. This intervention is bordering on being longer than the hon. Gentleman’s speech on the moving of the motion.

Mark Field: I think I would probably have to speak for another 21 minutes before that was the case, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Nevertheless, I think Mr Chope has got the gist.

Christopher Chope: Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was tempted to ask to intervene on my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for expanding on that important point, and I am grateful to you for your indulgence in enabling the point to be made. I accept that the City of London is in a separate position from that of other local authorities.
	I want to move away from the generalities and turn to the specifics of the Bill. The power in clause 3 relating to temporary street trading is effectively a liberating provision when compared with the current regime. It will enable street trading to be carried out over a limited period and, as the explanatory memorandum makes clear, it represents a relaxation of the restrictive code. I am not going to argue against that, because to do so would be to argue against the principles that I have fought hard for in many similar Bills in the House. I would not quibble with the detailed contents of the measures on temporary street trading.

Philip Davies: I share my hon. Friend’s view, but when it comes to scrutiny of the Bill, is he happy that the arrangements have been sufficiently relaxed?

Christopher Chope: I think my hon. Friend knows the answer to that: I would like to see a much more relaxed arrangement. Any relaxation, however, is probably better than none. It is important for people to be able to enter the marketplace as business men without the need for much capital. I view that as fundamental in an entrepreneurial society. The City of London obviously
	epitomises the entrepreneurial society, which is why it is good for the City of London to encourage street traders and people starting out in their business life and career to be able to show what they are worth, perhaps initially by getting a street trading licence, perhaps operating like interns on a temporary basis and seeing how it goes. I believe that clause 3 is—I hope I do not have to eat these words later—a clause for good, so I support it.
	The issue of temporary licences is not one that greatly concerns me, but I am concerned about whether the case for increased penalties has been made. It is easy to say that it is expensive to prosecute. We know that companies will say, “We do not prosecute people who are shoplifters because it is not worth the candle. It will cost us too much to prosecute and when we get people before the courts, the fines will be so derisory that we will not achieve much purpose and we will have been put to a lot of needless expense.” That argument is often put forward on behalf of public authorities, which are funded by local or national taxpayer resources.
	Having said all that, this country is one that believes in the rule of law, and I would have thought that an important principle of the rule of law is that if an enforcement authority feels that breaches of specific local byelaws or local legislation are to the detriment of the people living in the area, it should be quite happy to prosecute, recognising that a cost is associated with that. Ultimately, the taxpayer pays a lot of money for prosecuting people and even more money if those people are convicted and sentenced to prison, but we do not say that it is not a good thing to do that, as it is an important matter of principle. I am not impressed, in respect of clause 6, with the idea that prosecuting authorities should not bring prosecutions just because they think it is not financially expedient to do so on the grounds that insufficient money will come back to them. Apart from anything else, the penalties that will be increased will be court penalties; as I understand it, they will not be to the benefit of City of London local council tax payers. The penalties would go to helping to meet the costs of the national Exchequer, as they are pooled for very understandable reasons. In the absence of hard evidence, I am not convinced of the case for increasing the penalties as set out in clause 6.
	I have a much greater problem with clause 7. As I said in an intervention, the provisions on enforcement of seizure, the return of seized items, compensation, forfeiture of seized items, seizure of perishable articles, motor vehicles and disposal orders have been considered on a number of occasions by Members, most recently in respect of four private Bills promoted by the city of Leeds, the city of Nottingham, the city of Canterbury and Reading borough council. Those provisions were removed from all four Bills. My hon. Friend may say, “Ah, but this Bill relates to London, and the same provisions have been passed in the case of other London local authorities.” That is true, but they were passed against the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who I am pleased to see is present, and against my wishes, as well as, I believe, those of many other people.

Mark Field: My point was not simply that London is the capital city, but that the Bill deals specifically with the City of London. Given the importance of the
	business fraternity and given how few residents there are in the City, I believe that there is a case for reinforcing what my hon. Friend said earlier—that the City of London is and should be treated as a special case in this regard—particularly as the street trading provisions are so much more limited than they are in the other towns to which he has referred.

Christopher Chope: I take the point. However, the other side of the coin is that the City of London seems to have managed perfectly well up to now and no big issue has arisen, but there suddenly seems to be a need to introduce draconian seizure provisions.
	Line 25 of clause 7 starts off on the wrong basis. It begins:
	“Subject to subsection (2) and section 16E (seizure of perishable articles or things), if an authorised officer or a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.
	The tradition has always been that what is necessary is a reasonable ground for belief. It is hard to disprove a reasonable ground for suspicion, because suspicion is subjective anyway, so having to establish a reasonable ground for suspicion really means not having to establish anything whatsoever, in terms of a person having a guilty mind. All that is necessary is to establish a reasonable ground for suspecting.
	I know that my hon. Friend is very fair-minded, and I hope that he will consider tabling an amendment in Committee. Amendments that we have tabled to a number of similar Bills—it appears almost as if all Bills such as this are drafted by the same people, and that may well be so; the same solicitors or agents often act on behalf of different local authorities—have been accepted on the basis that “reasonable grounds for belief” is a much fairer way of dealing with the issue that the promoters and my hon. Friend wish to address. Whatever else may be the case, I am sure that the City of London would not want to be accused of being other than fair-minded in relation to, in particular, the rule of law.

Mark Field: The City of London could never be anything other than entirely fair-minded. My hon. Friend will, of course, be well aware that section 38 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 refers to reasonable grounds for suspicion. It should also be said that both Westminster city council and the London borough of Camden were given powers to seize equipment which an officer or constable had reasonable cause to believe was intended to be used to commit an offence, which is an even stronger basis. I accept, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept, that the position is not altogether clear-cut, although he makes a valid point about the distinction between belief and suspicion.

Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Meanwhile, in their consultation paper, the Government have proposed national legislation or regulation changes that local authorities can apply to opt in to. Effectively, they plan to impose, from the centre, a uniform regime covering issues such as this—issues of reasonable grounds for belief or suspicion, for instance—along with standard tests that would apply to the whole street trading regime and to the enforcement of infringements of it. I know that it is easy to argue the prematurity case in relation to Bills such as this, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could respond to that point.

Mark Field: In fairness, there is a lot to be said for having a national law and for trying to standardise and harmonise things, but in my view it would still be essential to have provisions that take account of individual cities’ own unique circumstances. We have to start from where we are, however, and the Government are phenomenally busy with a huge amount of legislation on a wide range of matters—some of which I think my hon. Friend has some support for—and the reality is that we are not going to get such uniformity or harmonisation any time soon, so we need to make progress through private Bills such as this one.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend’s comments serve to remind me that last night I was in the City of London Guildhall library where our party colleague the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) made a speech entitled “Deregulating for growth,” which is a principle I am sure my hon. Friend and I both support. Too much legislation adds new regulation, however, which is counter-productive to the policy of promoting growth in our economy, and anything the City of London does in adding further regulation will come under more scrutiny than if that is done by a little borough council somewhere else in the country, as the ethos of the City of London is based on having the minimum amount of regulation necessary to ensure we get economic growth and successful financial and professional services industries in the City. It is against that background that I raise my concerns about clause 7.

Philip Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with his views about giving local authorities of any description the power of seizure, especially on such flimsy evidence as provided for in this clause. Is he reassured in any way by proposed new subsection 16A(2), which says an article can be seized only
	“if it may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings in respect of the offence in question”,
	or is that merely a mask covering something that is still unacceptable?

Christopher Chope: On the face of it, that does not seem too bad, but if we look at other provisions in clause 7, we see that there are difficulties. Proposed new subsection 16A(1)(c) states that an authorised officer may seize
	“any receptacle or equipment being used by”
	the person in question. My hon. Friend will know from having read the Bill that a receptacle could be a motor car or van from which ice-creams are being sold. These receptacles or pieces of equipment are therefore potentially quite valuable, and the fact of having them seized could cause the person concerned a significant problem, particularly if they are seized on dubious grounds.

Philip Davies: It is stated that such an item can be seized only
	“if it may be required to be used in evidence.”
	Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really provide any safeguards at all, because anything could be seized on the basis that it may be required, as that does not mean that it is required?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. It is stated later in the Bill that such an item could be retained for up to six months on the basis that it may
	be required in connection with a prosecution. However, a prosecution may then never take place and the person will have been deprived of their goods for six months. That may have achieved the enforcement authority’s objective, but it generates a grave injustice for the victim of that seizure. That is why there needs to be a proper balance struck between the rights and responsibilities in the Bill’s enforcement provisions. We should be most reluctant to give powers of seizure to not only constables, but to authorised officers, who could be
	“any officer or employee of the Corporation”
	or
	“any person by whom…any enforcement functions under this Part fall to be discharged”
	or
	“any employee of any such person”.
	That is getting quite remote from the person in charge, and the more remote we go, the more scope there is for abuse.
	If the only redress is something that may come six months later, there may be no redress at all. For example, if the ice cream van—the “receptacle”—is seized in March, it might only be returned in September, by which time the main ice cream selling season will have passed and so the person’s livelihood will have been taken away from them for the duration of the season. That illustrates the potential gravity of what is being proposed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) might say that new section 16B deals with the return of seized articles, with subsection (3) stating:
	“Subject to subsection (8), following the conclusion of the proceedings the article or thing shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized”.
	Again, however, the devil is in the detail, as we see in the provisions dealing with the return of an ice cream van. New section 16B(5) provides that
	“where a receptacle seized…is a motor vehicle used for ice cream trading, the Corporation or the Commissioner of Police…shall, within 3 days of the receipt of an application in writing by the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle, permit the person to remove it.”
	In other words, the person would be able to take it back. However, the Bill goes on to state that they would not be able to do so
	“where the circumstances mentioned in subsection (7) apply”.
	One of those circumstances is perfectly reasonable— the person has been convicted of an offence under the legislation already. I am not going to quibble about that, but I do quibble with new section 16B(6)(b), which states that one of these circumstances is where
	“the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle is being prosecuted for a previous alleged offence”.
	In other words, someone gets arrested and prosecuted, and the proceedings have not been determined—so the presumption of innocence surely continues to apply—yet the mere fact that they are being prosecuted puts them in a more prejudicial position than if there were no prosecution. It is reasonable to look at some of the issues that we might want to raise in Committee, and that provision removing a person’s ability to recover their ice cream van within three days of it being removed if they are being prosecuted for another offence is draconian, over the top and unnecessary.

Philip Davies: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, but will he turn his eye to clause 16B(6)(c) as well? Not only is the position as he suggests, but another circumstances is where
	“the vehicle has been used in the commission of such an offence or previous alleged offence.”
	Is he aware of exactly who determines whether it has been used in such an offence or how an allegation of an offence would apply? That provision seems rather loose too.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The Bill does not say that the vehicle must have been used by the same person in the commission of such an offence. It could have been acquired in all innocence from a previous ice cream vendor in market overt, in an auction or by a private treaty sale. The vehicle’s new owner would not know that it had been used in the commissioning of an offence in the past, so he would be penalised because, unknown to him, the vehicle had been used in such a way. Surely that would be unreasonable. If the EU services directive wants to create level playing fields, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether there should be a level playing field, which we do not have at the moment, between those who have purchased ice cream vans but find out later that they have been used in connection with an offence in the City of London and those who purchase ice cream vans that have not been used for such offences. There should be a level playing field between those two categories of person.

Philip Davies: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is very good at picking up on these anomalies in Bills. Will he talk a little about how that measure applies to an alleged offence, as it applies even to an offence that has not necessarily taken place and that has merely been alleged?

Christopher Chope: Exactly. When people are given free rein to bring legislation before this House and to create new offences, the temptation always seems to be to draft the offences in the widest possible terms. It is incumbent on us to put pressure on the promoter of the Bill and to ask whether the proposals are reasonable or whether they go over the top. This is a good example of the drafting being far wider than it needs to be.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend is well aware of how the provision is designed to operate. The vagaries of the British weather mean that the period of time in which anyone would want to sell ice cream is often limited, but if someone committed an offence over a period of two or three months of hot summer weather and had their ice cream van seized, it would mean that they could not get it back every three days and continue with impunity to commit another offence before the constable impounded it again. The intention is simply to ensure that someone who has committed an offence should not be entitled to continue to do so simply because the wheels of the legal process take a long time to work. That is what the measure is designed to do and it is quite common in a range of areas, not just with ice cream vendors in the City of London.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that repeated offences or patterns of behaviour are widespread, as my hon. Friend says, but they are often dealt with by a civil injunction in the
	county court or even the High Court. There is no need to bring into the scope of the offence many innocents at large just because it is sometimes cumbersome to get an injunction. An injunction is a perfectly legitimate way of restraining such behaviour.

Mark Field: How would my hon. Friend feel as a council tax payer if the local authority in his area was taking out injunctions for such offences at vast cost rather than dealing with them? He and I are both constituency MPs and we deal daily with constituents who are concerned for a variety of reasons about the lack of enforcement action taken by our local authorities. This seems to me to be a sensible enforcement provision, whereas taking out an expensive and time-consuming injunction would clearly not be a sensible way forward.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I am not sure that I agree with him. One of the benefits of the injunction is that a breach can result in someone being brought before the courts for contempt of court and, ultimately, in their losing their liberty. That goes even further than this provision.
	All we are talking about here is the liberty of ice cream vans. With injunctions, the person themselves can lose their physical liberty because they are in contempt of court. My hon. Friend should not belittle the traditional use of injunctions as a proper and effective remedy against persistent aberrant behaviour, which none of us support. In none of my arguments on any of these Bills have I wanted to excuse or encourage unlawful behaviour. All I have wanted to do is ensure that the responses are proportionate and that people who are innocent are not caught up in the panoply of the criminal law without knowing about it. In this particular case, someone could lose their ice cream van when they did not know that it had been used before.

Mark Field: I must confess that I hoped my hon. Friend would be delighted to see that there are 10 subsections dealing with the return of the seized articles and only three dealing with the seizure itself.

Christopher Chope: That is almost a commentary on regulation. We regulate, and to deregulate we have to create provisions that are a lot more complicated than the original regulation. Reverting to the brilliant lecture that I attended last night, one of the representatives from a large City firm said that we must be alert to the danger of “comfort in complexity”. That is a good thing to bear in mind. My hon. Friend says that we introduce powers to seize and then we have to set out at even greater length the exemptions to the seizure regime. How complicated is that? It is unnecessarily complicated, regulatory and burdensome on people who might want to start a new enterprise that could result in their becoming multimillionaires and working for people in the City, whom Opposition Members so despise but we realise are important to the British economy. That is by the by.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman said. I apologise that I was not here from the start of the debate, but I was watching from my office. Did he say that Opposition Members despise the City of London?

Christopher Chope: I am not going to accuse the hon. Gentleman of despising the City of London. If he wants to put on record his support for the City, I am sure that he will have an opportunity to do so in the debate. But I am sure he recognises that quite a lot of Opposition Members make statements that give the impression that they are hostile to the City.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that the ice cream van is waiting for you to deliver a fresh flake rather than take us somewhere we do not want to be. It is not like Mr Chope to wander away and be tempted in other directions. Let us get back to where we should be.

Christopher Chope: Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right to have a go at the victim, which is me. I was led astray by that intervention, and I accept full responsibility.
	If a product is perishable, the consequences of having it seized may be that it loses all its value. That is important. I am not sure that the provisions relating to perishable items in clause 16E are sufficient. The clause says:
	“No article or thing which is of a perishable nature … shall be seized under the provisions of section 16A … unless the Corporation gives a notice in writing under subsection (2) to the person from whom the article or thing is seized.”
	I would have thought it best to say that nothing perishable should be seized. Ice-cream could be removed and, if necessary, the van seized. The seizure of perishable articles is quite an oppressive power.
	Proposed new section 16E(2) states:
	“Where a perishable article or thing is seized…the person from whom it is seized shall be given a notice in writing…giving the address from which the article or thing may be collected; and…stating that if that person is not the owner of the article or thing, then that person should give the owner the information referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).”
	On the face of it, one would think that that would ensure that perishable articles were not seized, but when one looks at the small print one sees that they will be seized, and that is unfair and unjust. Indeed, such provisions have been removed from similar Bills because Members on the Government Benches—I cannot speak for Opposition Members—thought that they were disproportionately heavy in their application to ordinary people.
	I have some grave concerns about the powers of seizure, especially when dealing with items of greater value than the maximum penalties under the Bill. A specific provision provides that it is open to the authorities to seize equipment, including motor vehicles, of a value higher than the maximum fine that could be imposed under any circumstances. That, in effect, deprives people of their assets, perhaps temporarily, in a disproportionately heavy manner.

Philip Davies: I wondered whether my hon. Friend was going to mention the provision on compensation for seizure. Proposed new section 16D(4) states:
	“The court may only make an order for compensation under subsection (3) if satisfied that seizure was not lawful under section 16A.”
	That comes back to reasonable grounds for suspicion, which appears to me to be framed so as to ensure that compensation never has to be paid, even when seizure has happened wrongly.

Christopher Chope: As so often, my hon. Friend is right. By looking at all the language in the Bill, one is able to see the consequences. The exemptions are so hedged around that it will be difficult for anyone to comply with them, especially if the ultimate test is whether someone has a reasonable suspicion. That particular fault-line runs throughout these clauses. I have many concerns about the powers, especially as they relate to motor vehicles and perishable goods, but I do not need to go into the detail of disposal orders at the moment.
	Clause 8 deals with charges for licensed street traders. I have always tried to be fair and give credit where it is due, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster makes a strong case on this issue. If one side of the street is controlled by one local authority and the other side by another local authority, there is an argument for saying that the prices charged for street-trading licences should be the same. My hon. Friend may remember the days when the Foreign Secretary lived on one side of a street in Lambeth and the other side of the street was in Wandsworth, and there was an enormous disparity in council tax—the figure in Lambeth being very much higher than that in Wandsworth. That shows the sensitivity when one part of the street is in one borough and another part of the street in another local authority area, resulting in differential pricing.

Philip Davies: I intervene to remind my hon. Friend that the Ministers have changed places and he can now commend the current incumbent of the Front Bench for his excellent speech last night.

Christopher Chope: I have already done so.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Chope has rightly pointed out that he has already congratulated the Minister on that speech, and I am sure that he was coming to the end of where he needs to be—on the Bill, rather than on the ability of someone speaking last night in the library.

Christopher Chope: I think it was a question not of whether congratulations had been offered, but of whether they had been communicated and whether my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench had received the notice.

Mr Deputy Speaker: We will not waste the time of the House on that matter.

Christopher Chope: I will not do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to cross you on this or any other matter.
	I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is on the Front Bench to listen to the next part of the debate, as this is the issue that concerns his own Department—clause 9 on trading outside business premises. For reasons that I can understand, the City of London says that in order to bring a little more vibrancy to life in the City of London, particularly at weekends and particularly for
	tourists, why not allow people to sell ice creams off the street, rather than just from fixed locations in shops and cafes? It says that people should be able to sell ice creams from a receptacle, which could include an ice cream van, located within 15 metres of business premises.
	Listening to the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I was not sure whether the definition of business premises included St Paul’s cathedral chapter or not, and whether St Paul’s cathedral itself would be covered.

Mark Field: Ecclesiastical venues are an extremely serious business, but I do not think the intention was that St Paul’s chapter should be included as a business premises. There are a number of genuine business premises within the vicinity and curtilage of St Paul’s cathedral and they would be included.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Although I might quibble with the fact that the corporation is retaining for itself the ability to approve the design, location and purpose of the receptacle, I think the principle is a good one. I do not understand why it should be thought that this may indirectly discriminate against non-EU nationals, which is what the Minister who spoke earlier in the debate said she thought it might do. How would it do that?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, with all the resources of the City of London behind him, at the behest of the Department got leading counsel’s opinion on the matter. Leading counsel’s opinion was submitted to the Department in February. By 14 February a holding reply had been issued. By 19 February—my right hon. Friend the Minister is rightly listening to this—the Department had already decided that leading counsel’s opinion, which had taken many months to produce, was wrong. Where does that leave everybody?
	Surely the situation should have been anticipated by BIS a long time ago. It was BIS that proposed implementation of the EU services directive. Even now, two years—or is it three years?—after it has been implemented, we cannot even get a definitive ruling on whether the directive applies in such a way as to negate the legitimate aspiration of the City of London to enable people who already have businesses operating in the City of London to extend those businesses for the purpose of selling ice creams when the season is right. We must be absolutely mad if we think that should be outlawed because it might indirectly discriminate against non-EU nationals. I invite the Minister to let his imagination run riot and envisage any other legislature in the European Union stating that it would be wrong to bring in such a provision enabling their own people to engage in enterprise because it might indirectly discriminate against Brits, for example. I cannot believe that such an argument would be given the time of day in any other Parliament in the European Union. I hope that can be resolved.
	There is also a procedural issue. As I understand it, there are no petitions against the Bill, so it will go into Committee unopposed. Unless it is amended in Committee, the House will not be able to amend it later, because it will not be considered on Report. We encountered that issue with the Nottingham City Council Bill, the Canterbury
	City Council Bill and others, which were originally not opposed but then went to the other place, where they were opposed. However, this Bill has already been to the other place.
	Therefore, I think that it is important that my right hon. Friend the Minister, when responding to the debate, makes it explicit—it is already pretty explicit—how he and the City of London corporation will negotiate with the Department over the proper interpretation of clause 9 vis-à-vis the services directive. It is no good if the Bill goes through Committee before that is resolved, because there will be no scope under the procedures of this House to make amends later. If the Minister produces the certificate of incompatibility in due course, where will that lead?

Mark Field: It is absolutely clear that the City of London corporation would not wish any legislation that was incompatible with EU law to go through. The dispute between leading counsel and the Department needs to be resolved before we can proceed beyond Second Reading, and that does not prevent the Second Reading debate taking place today. I am confident that we will be able to get this matter resolved in such a way that will satisfy not only my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but the Department and the sponsors of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend refers to the need to deal with Second Reading today. As is perhaps implicit from what I have been saying, there are many parts of the Bill that I think are good, but there are some that I am not so happy about and some issues that I think need to be resolved. I am not minded to oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, because I think that my hon. Friend brings a constructive approach to these debates, which is no more nor no less than we would expect of him and, certainly, of the City of London itself. It recognises that some of us believe that these Bills are better discussed, rather than pushed through without proper discussion. In that spirit, I hope that some of the concerns I have expressed during my short contribution to the debate can be reflected upon to see whether any amendments should be proposed in Committee.
	I am not often lost for words when it comes to the details of Bills, but I have nothing to say about the provisions on walkways set out in clause 10. I think that any reasonable person would accept the analogy between a walkway and a footpath, so I am certainly not going to quibble about that.
	Having put on the record some of my concerns about the Bill, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster on the way in which he introduced it. I hope that in due course he will get some clarity from the Department, and perhaps even an admission that it let people down by not recognising the implications of the EU services directive for street trading and pedlary in this country.

Philip Davies: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to catch my eye, would I be correct in saying that he was not here at the beginning for the opening speeches?

Philip Davies: I was in the House. As I had been on such a long haul in the previous debate, I popped out for a quick drink.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It must have been quite a long drink. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not quite the normal thing and I am sure that he would like to apologise before I call him to speak.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do apologise for the discourtesy to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). As I said, I popped out for a drink after the previous debate, where I had been on duty for quite some time.

Mark Field: It was tea, wasn’t it?

Philip Davies: It was indeed. However, you will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I watched the monitor while I was drinking said cup of tea, and so I did catch the points that my hon. Friend made. You will be relieved to know that I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I am sure that you did not expect me to.
	I want to begin where my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) left off, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He is a reasonable man who listens to the points that are made in debate and, where good cases are made, responds in a positive way. We have not always seen that in previous debates on private business, and we should commend him for his approach to these matters. This Bill is certainly not as bad as some of the Bills that we have considered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, some of its clauses are positive changes that we welcome.
	It is always right on these occasions that we congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on how he scrutinises such Bills, which it would be perfectly possible to allow to go through on the nod. Yet they do a great disservice to lots of decent people who are trying to earn a crust, and to show some entrepreneurial spirit in doing so, but find themselves on the wrong side of poorly drafted legislation. It is to his credit that we scrutinise these things in some detail so that we can try to avoid those pitfalls.
	Like my hon. Friend, I strongly support the purpose of clause 3 on temporary street trading. As he says, this is a relaxation of the law that will enable more people to engage in entrepreneurial enterprise, and for that we should be grateful. However, I am not entirely sure exactly what is intended in all cases when this part of the Bill is brought into play and a licence is granted. It strikes me that the clause is not really intended for the benefit of entrepreneurs, as my hon. Friend seemed to think when he extolled its virtues. He seemed to be saying that it was good because it would be of benefit to entrepreneurs, but I am not entirely sure that that its purpose, although it may well be its end result.
	Let me explain what I think is the real purpose of the clause. Certain people in the City of London may on occasion want to have some swish event, or perhaps not even a swish event but just a celebratory event, on the streets of the City of London. They may realise that in order to make that event as good and as appealing as possible, they would be assisted by the provisions in the
	clause, without which the event might not be quite so popular. The clause seems to be intended for their benefit rather than the benefit of the people whom my hon. Friend apparently had in mind. However, that is by the by.

Mark Field: It is fair to say that clause 3 is designed to relax the strict rules that have been in place for the past century. I do not think there is any desire to return to the days of Bartholomew Fair or other such terrible things that took place in far-flung parts of the City of London. As my hon. Friend may be aware, the Winter Wonderland in Hyde park has been a tremendous success, and something along those lines, but on a much more limited scale and for a short period of up to three weeks, might be borne in mind for the City of London. It would be sensible to enable provisions for that.

Philip Davies: I agree. To be honest, that was the type of event that I had in mind with regard to the clause, although it states that the corporation may grant a licence
	“subject to such conditions as the Corporation may determine.”
	I am not entirely sure, but that may involve some harsh conditions that will not be particularly attractive to anybody. We can leave that as a matter for negotiation between any potential trader and the corporation, because it is in the corporation’s interest that some people will want to take it up. I think we can say that clause 3 makes a positive change and I am happy to support it as drafted.
	On clause 6, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on penalties. I, too, was not clear that a case had been made as to why this change should be made. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who promoted the Bill, say—this demonstrates that I was watching the monitor while drinking my tea—that the clause was intended to bring the level of the fine in line with that in other areas. I understand that, but that is not to say that those other authorities are on the right track. That argument seems to take it as read that because other authorities impose fines at a certain level, they must be right. Some may argue that they are not and that the current level is more appropriate.

Mark Field: I think that my hon. Friend would recognise that a fixed penalty notice provides a more efficient means of enforcement than going down the seizure route. One would hope that harmonising it to a level 3 fine of £1,000 instead of the current £500 fine would make seizure, which is the subject of other clauses, less likely. The fixed penalty route is a more efficient way of doing things.

Philip Davies: I accept that point, but I am not necessarily persuaded that we should ratchet up the fines. Of course, if there is good evidence to do so I would be happy to listen to it.
	My main concern relates to clause 7 and enforcement, and this has been a common theme when we have debated other, similar Bills. The clause would give rather big powers to any authorised officer. Subsection (1)(c) states that such powers will be given to “any employee” of the corporation, but that extends the powers over seizure and other things covered by the clause far too wide. It seems far too draconian.
	I am sure that the overwhelming majority of people who work in local authorities up and down the country do their job diligently, well and to the best of their ability, without abusing the authority that has been given to them. That tends to be how things are done up and down the country.

Mark Field: May I provide my hon. Friend with some reassurance? Part of this process is designed to help save the time of hard-pressed police officers, which is an issue that I am sure applies as much to the West Yorkshire constabulary as it does to the City of London. I assure the House that any officer exercising a power of seizure or issuing a fixed penalty notice will receive proper training. The corporation ensures that that applies to all current staff in cases involving, for example, litter offences and highway obstructions. My hon. Friend can be assured that council employees will receive proper training through training sessions in order to be made aware of their powers and the limitations of those powers under the Bill.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point is extremely helpful and shows that he understands my concern. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that that point is made clear in the Bill. It may well be the intention and I am certain that it is his intention. However, the people who run the City of London will change over time and the new people may well take a different view about the level of training that is needed. It might be helpful if it was made clear in the Bill what level of training is required before people are given this kind of power.
	I worry about giving local authority officers what are, in effect, police powers, especially as liberally as in this provision. My hon. Friend seemed to indicate that the aim of this measure was to relieve pressure on the police. The point that I made earlier stands. Although the overwhelming majority of council officers carry out their work diligently and appropriately, I am sure that we have all come across examples of the pettifogging council officer. Funnily enough, I had to deal with one myself, a traffic officer, in Bradford not long ago. I am sure that such officers are not unique to Bradford. I worry about giving such powers, willy-nilly, to too many people without any of the appropriate safeguards.

Bob Stewart: I think it is correct that if enforcement action is to take place, a police officer or someone in authority has to be present.

Philip Davies: I do not think that that is the case. That is one of the things about which I worry.
	I am delighted to see the arrival of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in the Chamber, particularly as we are talking about the laws on seizure and about giving council officers the authority to seize people’s goods, because he has shown time and again that he, too, is nervous about such provisions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was right to highlight that all the issues flow from proposed new section 16A on seizure, which is contained in clause 7. It states that there must be
	“reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence”.
	It would be difficult for any officer to fall foul of such a loose definition. This is not a trifling matter. We are talking about somebody seizing somebody else’s goods. That is a big power. I think that a higher test should have to be met before council officers are authorised to go around seizing people’s goods.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it is not just any article that is being
	“offered for sale, displayed or exposed for sale”
	that can be seized. Proposed new section 16A(1)(b) states that
	“any other article or thing of a similar nature to that being offered or exposed for sale which is in the possession”
	of the person may be seized. Even if something is not being offered for sale, the officer if still authorised to take it away from the individual. Paragraph (c) also includes
	“any receptacle or equipment being used by that person.”
	These are wide-ranging powers of seizure that we are in danger of giving to any employee of the corporation, notwithstanding the reassurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave about the level of training that will be given, just on the basis of “reasonable grounds” for suspicion. There is a great danger that, on occasion, that authority and power will be misused by people, perhaps out of frustration or for another reason, if appropriate safeguards are not put in place.
	The Bill says—I made this point in a brief intervention earlier, but I want to expand upon it—that something may be seized only
	“if it may be required to be used in evidence”.
	Reading the Bill for the first time, that sounds like quite a good safeguard, because people will not be able to seize things willy-nilly and they will be able to use them only in evidence. However, it states that it can be seized if it only may be required, which is essentially no safeguard at all. Anything can be seized on the basis that it may need to be used in evidence—who is to decide that?
	The officers who seize goods will naturally take a precautionary position, and I would not blame them for that. They will want to seize as much as possible, because they will not want somebody further down the line to ask them, “Why did you leave them with that bit of stuff? That could have been crucial evidence to prosecute them.” I suspect that in the training that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, officers will be told, “Take as much as you can, because it may be crucial. The bit that you leave behind may have been the crucial bit.” I fear that the provision is written to look like a safeguard but is no safeguard whatever.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, the Bill mentions receptacles, and vans, cars or any other type of vehicle could be described as receptacles for the purpose of the Bill. There are serious concerns about the people who can seize products and the definition of when it is appropriate to do so.
	Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend did not really touch on the return of seized articles, but proposed new section 16B(4) sets out what will happen when
	“after 28 days any costs awarded by the court to the Corporation have not been paid”.
	There are some potentially contradictory points on the matter that do not really flow on from one another. On the one hand, if that point applies, the Bill allows the City of London to dispose of products
	“in any way the Corporation thinks fit”.
	However, it then states that
	“any sum obtained by the Corporation in excess of the costs…shall be returned to the person”.
	That is highly unlikely, given that the corporation can dispose of products in any way, shape or form. However, it also states that the corporation has
	“a duty to secure the best possible price which can reasonably be obtained for that article or thing.”
	I cannot reconcile the corporation being able to dispose of an article in any way it sees fit with the fact that it is being asked to obtain the best possible price for it. Those seem completely contradictory statements. If we are saying that the corporation has to get the best possible price, proposed subsection (4)(a), whereby it can dispose of an article in any way it thinks fit, seems redundant.
	The best possible price that can reasonably be obtained for something depends on how the corporation gets rid of it. If it sells it in a similar way to the person who was trading it and from whom it was seized, it can get the full retail price. I am not entirely sure how it will fulfil its duty to secure the best possible price for something. What will it be expected to go through to fulfil that condition? It seems to me that in the real world, it will not make any effort whatever to go out and sell something at the best possible price. It will dispose of it.

David Nuttall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is being generous with his time.
	Is my hon. Friend not concerned, as I am, that the real tragedy will be that once goods are seized, the trader involved may well lose their livelihood? Is that not the danger?

Philip Davies: Absolutely, particularly if the products are just going to be disposed of.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend share my hope that the sponsor of the Bill will intervene to explain that such goods would be sold in Petticoat lane?

Philip Davies: That would be a helpful intervention, but I am not entirely sure that the Bill’s sponsor can give that commitment, to be perfectly honest. I certainly do not think we should press him to do so. However, such anomalies in the Bill make it unclear what will happen.
	I do not want to dwell on the issue of vehicles, but where people are being prosecuted for a previous alleged offence, or where a vehicle has been used in a previous alleged offence, that is dangerous territory. The clause makes it clear that no offence needs to have been committed for things not to be returned to the owner; it just needs to have been alleged that things were used in a previous offence. That is no basis on which to take things away from people and refuse to return them. That flies in the face of all natural justice and the British way of doing things. I must say in passing that I am not known for being soft on crime, but I draw a distinction between where a crime has been committed and where one has been alleged. The Bill does not adequately draw a distinction between the two.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend think it would be helpful if Mr Double, the City remembrancer who signed the statement saying that the provisions in the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, were to expand on why he believes that to be the case?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend made that point very well during his speech and I do not want to reiterate his point, but he is absolutely right.
	Remaining on the subject of the return of seized items, I have some minor worries about this section. Proposed new section 16B(8)(a) states:
	“if no proceedings have been instituted before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date of seizure”.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made clear, 28 days can be an awful long time to go without goods if one’s livelihood depends on them. It would be a bit of a kick in the teeth if one were not allowed to have one’s goods when no offence had been committed or was being pursued, and it could have a big impact on one’s livelihood for that month.
	Proposed new section 16B(8) goes on to state:
	“unless it has not proved possible, after diligent enquiry, to identify that person or ascertain the person’s address.”
	I am not entirely sure what the definition of a “diligent enquiry” is, or how diligent a “diligent enquiry” needs to be. I fear that some of the provisions will be used to give an excuse for not returning goods to their proper lawful owner. We should be minimising the opportunities for that.
	Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not mention this point, it is worth noting that proposed new section 16C(4) states that the court may order forfeiture of goods even if the value exceeds the maximum penalty for the offence that has been committed. We are in the strange situation where we are levying a maximum penalty, but if the goods exceed that maximum penalty they can still be forfeited. I am not sure on what basis that can be either right or fair. If there is a maximum penalty, surely that should be the maximum penalty. The provision flies in the face of natural justice, and it would be interesting to have some clarification on it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made the point that proposed new section 16D(1)(b)(ii) states that people might have to wait six months before compensation, which is a lengthy period of time. The court will only be able to make an order for compensation if it is satisfied that the seizure was lawful under proposed new section 16A. I hope my hon. Friend will come back to section 16A and whether we can strengthen
	“reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence”.
	Otherwise, the corporation would never have to pay compensation, irrespective of how it acted, but that cannot be the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Surely, it should be forced to pay compensation if it has acted in a way that is not becoming. We would all like to see that, I am sure, yet we are in danger of giving it a get-out-of-jail card and letting it get out of paying compensation.
	I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about perishable items. I thought he made them very well, so I will not repeat
	them—
	[Interruption.]—
	despite the encouragement from Opposition Members to extol the virtues of his argument a bit more. Perhaps I will, under their provocation, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Lindsay Hoyle: Or perhaps you won’t.

Philip Davies: But for now I shall resist the temptation.
	Instead of repeating my hon. Friend’s points, I will try to pick out those that he might have missed out. Safe to say, subsection (5) to proposed new subsection 16E provides that
	“the Corporation shall have a duty to secure the best possible price”
	for these perishable goods. How on earth will it go about obtaining the best possible price for these perishable goods? Will it be setting up its own market stall? I do not think so. I wonder why that provision is in the Bill, given that it obviously is not going to happen.
	Subsection (4) provides that the goods will be disposed of, if the person from whom it was seized
	“fails to collect it within 48 hours of the seizure”,
	but just because something is perishable, it does not mean it will go off in 48 hours. It might have a much longer date. I am not sure, therefore, why we have only got 48 hours for all perishable goods, irrespective of how long they could be used for. It seems that we are just presuming that everything being sold will go off within 48 hours, but that clearly does not apply to all perishable goods. I hope that some thought will be given to whether that provision is appropriate, too draconian or just totally inflexible. As we all know, perishable goods go off at various different times.
	On the seizure of motor vehicles—or ice cream vans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out—I wonder how this is going to work. As far as I can see—I could be wrong, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster can help me—the Bill does not make it clear who would pay for the seizure, transportation, storage and return of the vehicle concerned. When the police seize or confiscate a vehicle—for example, when people are driving around without any insurance—they bring in a transport company to take it away and lock it up, and people must pay a release charge to get the car back again. Presumably, the corporation would have to go through the same kind of operation. It would not just leave the vehicle where it was, because presumably that is the whole point—it was causing an obstruction or should not have been there, and so the corporation would want to move it.
	If the corporation uses the provisions to bring in a garage to tow away and store a vehicle, a cost will be incurred, but it is not clear from the Bill who would be liable for meeting the cost. Would the cost fall on the trader or the corporation? If the cost was incurred by the trader, but it was later shown that no offence had been committed, would the corporation reimburse the trader? As far as I can see—I stand to be corrected—the Bill does not make any of those things clear. It would be particularly helpful, therefore, if we could have some clarity. It is bad enough someone having their vehicle seized, if no offence has been committed, but if they
	then have to pay to have it returned and cannot claim back the money, it would be a further kick in the teeth. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider those points, on which I am seeking clarification. Clause 9, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, seems a sensible provision. It will allow businesses more freedom to trade outside their own premises, and I heartily endorse it.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept the spirit in which the scrutiny of the Bill has been carried out today. It is our intention to improve it, and I do not think there has been any attempt to wreck it or to stop it. We in this House take seriously our job of protecting people’s freedoms, and of protecting people from unnecessary or over-zealous regulation and legislation. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is in his place, has a good track record of trying to stop unnecessary regulation, legislation and bureaucracy.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I are simply trying to prevent any unintended consequences that the legislation might have so that it will achieve what he wants it to achieve and does not do what my hon. Friend and I fear it might well do if it goes through unchecked.

Jim Fitzpatrick: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, and I am sure that he will mention that to the House. I am also sure that he will speak only briefly.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said in an intervention that I had been watching the debate from my office, and I apologised to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) for missing his speech. I congratulate him on bringing the Bill to the House. I will speak briefly, because I am in the Chamber principally to lead for the Opposition on the Humber Bridge Bill, which is next on the Order Paper, and which a number of colleagues are keen to get on to.
	I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) described the attitude of Opposition Members towards the City of London as “hostile”. There is no doubt that some Opposition Members are hostile to the City, but they are not here tonight and I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Front Bench as he is in favour of the Bill. I do so for several reasons. I acknowledge the contribution that the City makes to the UK economy. I am a constituency MP in the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets, and we benefit greatly from the generosity and support of the City. We appreciate the partnership with the Corporation of London. On a personal basis, as a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, I have had the honour of participating in a ceremony at which I was granted the freedom of the City, although it was pointed out that I do not have the right to drive my sheep across London bridge, were I to have any.
	I am a great admirer of the traditions, history and heritage of the Corporation of London. I am pleased to support the Bill, which will now go into Committee. I am also pleased to correct the record in relation to what was said about Opposition Members earlier. I also hope that we will be able to deal with—

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not going to be tempted either way any more, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has now come to the end of his speech. I am going to bring in Mark Field.

Mark Field: I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate, some of whom have made rather longer contributions than others. My hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) have approached the debate in a relatively good-humoured way, and I hope they will feel that I have dealt with the points that they have raised. Once the Bill goes into Committee, we will be able to take on board a number of the concerns that have been expressed, particularly those relating to the European services directive. That is obviously an ongoing concern. I was pleased to see that both my hon. Friends were on my side on that matter, and on the side of the corporation. We will endeavour to ensure that the provisions are compatible with EU law, along the lines of the judgment that we have received from leading counsel.
	I also want to take this opportunity to thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He made a good point about the importance of the City of London Corporation. It is an anomalous organisation, in that the City is the only area that still retains a business vote. Indeed, local elections will be held in the City within the next month. The City takes very seriously its responsibilities beyond the square mile, and takes great pride in the work that it does in the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney and Islington, which make up the City fringe. We all benefit as Londoners from the phenomenal work done in West Ham park, Queen’s park, Epping forest and Hampstead heath, to name a few other of our most important open spaces maintained with great love and affection by the City of London Corporation. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) rightly points out, this applies to West Wickham common as well, for great historical reasons going back over a century.
	I will not detain the House any longer. I very much hope that we can move rapidly beyond Second Reading of this important little bit of legislation. It will not make a huge difference, but some great benefits—not just to the City of London but to many of its residents, businesses and the huge numbers of visitors we see every year—will derive from the Bill when it passes rapidly, I hope, into law.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second Time and committed.

Humber Bridge Bill

Second Reading

Andrew Percy: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I move the Second Reading on behalf of other Members from the region who are in the Chamber, including the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). We have been united on this Bill, which seems to have attracted some interest from other parts of the country. We welcome that, and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) highlighting the existence of the Bill, we look forward to hordes of visitors to our region from his area and elsewhere.
	Let me explain in a few words why across the Humber and across the political parties we jointly believe the Bill to be necessary. We ran a long cross-party and cross-estuary campaign to get action taken on the very high tolls on the Humber bridge. As we know, this was successful when we received a grant from the Chancellor of £150 million to enable the tolls to be halved. That has had a huge impact on the numbers crossing the bridge, which was absolutely necessary given the challenges in the region, with two of the poorest boroughs in the country.
	While the Minister is in his place on the Front Bench—and I see that the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) has joined us—I would like to pay tribute on behalf of myself and colleagues for the work they did to make this happen. We are indebted to them for their efforts and hard work. Without their personal involvement, I am not so sure that we would have got the results that we have seen.
	I want to refer in a little detail to some of the changes introduced by the Bill and to explain their necessity. Somebody once said to me that the bridge was built on the back of a 1950s Bill, constructed in the 1970s and opened in the 1980s. Indeed, I was three years old when it opened, and we have worked out that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes was nine when the original Bill for the construction of the bridge was introduced back in 1959. The bridge board building has been constructed for some considerable time, and those who have visited it will appreciate that; it is almost in a time warp and is like stepping back in time.
	There used to be 22 members from the various local authorities serving on the bridge board, and I declare an interest as a former member of that board. I was not one of the 22 members, but one of the 22 reserve members—in total, we had 44 potential members of the Humber bridge board representing the four local authorities in the region. It has to be said that the local authorities were different at that time. It was an unwieldy institution, and the Bill will formally reduce membership to four and add two members from the private sector, which we all believe is necessary to give the bridge a new look and a new drive. Those two additional members will be drawn from the business community, and there is provision
	to allow for their reasonable expenses. This might have been a cause of concern to some people, but I assure Members that the four members of the local authorities will continue to draw their expenses for attending the bridge board from the local authority remuneration scheme, and there is no intention at all to draw any salaries or additional expenses from the Humber bridge board. This provision is necessary just for the out-of-pocket expenses of the two private sector members, so that they can reclaim their travel expenses, which they cannot do at the moment. There is no intention of creating director salaries for the local authority members.

Philip Davies: According to clause 5,
	“The Board may pay to each director of the Board such allowances and expenses as the Board may from time to time determine.”
	I am not entirely convinced that the Bill imposes a great deal of restraint on the directors. Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me out.

Andrew Percy: Obviously, all members of the board will be created equal. It is essential for private sector members to be able to claim out-of-pocket expenses, but local authority members will continue to be remunerated by their authorities through local government schemes. Given that they are elected representatives, if they made any attempt to draw salaries they could expect a backlash at the ballot box.
	It could be argued that the bridge is more advantageous to people living on the south bank of the Humber, but at present 98% of liability for the burden of debt lies with the city of Hull because of the way in which it was constructed. Protracted negotiations took place involving one authority in particular, but the objections of that authority were overcome. It was agreed that the bridge was of equal importance to all four, and that the burden should therefore be shared equally between them.
	I hesitate to say this, given the political beliefs of some of my colleagues who are in the Chamber, but no traffic enforcement is currently possible on the Humber bridge. I was told recently that it was possible to drive through the tolls at 100 mph naked on a motorbike without committing any traffic offences. Not many people do that, of course, but we cannot allow such safety issues not to be addressed. Those who do not pay the toll cannot currently be pursued, and the current speed limit is not enforceable. Allowing the board to deal with that is simply a practical measure.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is there a problem with boy racers from Cleethorpes driving along the bridge at excessive speed, and has it ever been known for a Member of Parliament to do so?

Andrew Percy: I will not be drawn down that path. I understand that the person who apparently holds the speed record on the bridge may be well known publicly, but I will not name that person. It is certainly no one in the House.
	At present, the board is allowed no flexibility in regard to dispensation from tolls. For those of us who represent the south bank, that is an important issue. Health and other services have increasingly been concentrated on
	the north bank over the past decade or so. Certain cancer and heart treatments are offered in Hull, but it is not currently possible for any toll dispensations to be given to the cancer and cardiac patients who must travel to the north bank regularly for their treatment.
	It causes outrage locally that, while the Home Office will pay the tolls of the families who visit prisoners on the north bank and jobseekers can claim support through Jobcentre Plus, health patients receive no such support. It will now be up to the bridge board to decide whether it wishes to exercise such a discretion, and it has indicated that it is sympathetic to the requirements of certain types of patients who require regular treatment on the other side of the river.
	As I said at the outset, there has been a cross-party campaign to modernise the bridge. We feel that the current structure is too rigid, that it does not give the board the commercial freedoms that it requires, and that consequently this change is essential.

Philip Davies: It appears that the Bill does not allow the board to increase the maximum toll, although it can vary tolls. Will it be able to increase them in future, and what will be the implications for people more widely?

Andrew Percy: The situation in respect of the tolls is that they could be raised and returned to £3 overnight under the order currently in place without any consultation with the public.
	This is what happens at present. A toll inquiry is held—at great cost to the board—at regular intervals, to which local MPs, including myself and many other Members present, trot up and argue passionately against any rise in the tolls, often on social or economic grounds. The bridge board’s primary responsibility and function, however, is, and will remain, repaying the debt so those arguments are completely irrelevant.
	Huge sums of money are spent whenever an inquiry is demanded and is granted by the Secretary of State, and at the end of that process the inspector’s recommendation has always been that the tolls must be raised. The Bill will allow the bridge board to raise the tolls in line with the retail prices index, should it wish to do so—although I hasten to add that the bridge board has recently said it expects to hold the tolls at £1.50, so there would be a real-terms cut year on year for the next three or four years at the very least.
	The charade of a process that has gone on until now in respect of toll rises did not give the public any real say. There was a lot of debate and a lot of hot air was generated, but at the end of the day the situation fundamentally came down to the bridge board’s finances and therefore every toll rise was always consented to, with the exception of one, when a Minister intervened in the run-up to an election.

Bob Stewart: Is my hon. Friend saying that once the cost of the bridge has been repaid the toll will substantially reduce or disappear?

Andrew Percy: We may all be dead and buried by the time that happens—I include myself in that. The freedoms introduced by the Bill will allow the bridge board to refinance in a way that it currently cannot, and it will be for the bridge board to determine what it wishes to do with the bridge once the cost has been repaid. It may
	want to start raising money for a replacement bridge, because I am assured that the existing bridge will reach the end of its lifespan at some point.
	Under the Bill, the bridge board will be entitled to raise tolls in line with RPI. As part of the changes, it has for the first time established user groups and business groups to engage the public properly in any consultation. The situation will be largely unchanged, however: the primary focus will always be whether the bridge board’s finances are sound and whether it can repay the debt, which is its No. 1 legal responsibility. That is done through the tolls, as has always been the case. It is not done at general expense to the taxpayer. Indeed, we have paid for the bridge four times over and still owe about £150 million. The situation in respect of tolls will be unchanged, therefore, except that we will not have to go through this potential charade of having an inquiry at the end of which there is no real discretion.
	We are all in agreement about this Bill. We have all supported the campaign for a long time. The fact that tolls have halved has had a huge impact locally.

Alan Johnson: I rise to emphasise that there is cross-party, cross-Humber support for the Bill. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), my hon. Friends the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), too. We have all worked together to establish a new way of looking at the Humber bridge. I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for International Development for the work she did in her previous post. To emphasise the cross-party consensus, I should point out, too, that the Minister who will be replying to the debate is a Liberal Democrat.
	It is said that the way to bring two communities together is to build a bridge. We did that to bring the communities of east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire together. In a way, that bridge became a cause of division, however, and it certainly did not allow us to fulfil the economic development potential of the region. This Bill changes that, not least because the bridge board will have the power to promote and participate in the economic development of our sub-region.
	Because of the tolls and because of the archaic, centralised and almost Stalinist way in which the Humber Bridge Board was set up—it was a creature of its post-war time—it was impossible to use that bridge between the two communities to maximise our economic potential. Now, with the local enterprise partnership, with an emphasis on localism, we are determined to make that work. We have done an awful lot by halving the bridge tolls, which is very important, but we need to set up a new structure, reducing the 22 board members to four local authority members—and we need to include all the local authorities, because one was not included under the current structure. We also need to add to that the knowledge and expertise of the business community. Allowing those things to happen will mean that we can
	take advantage of the huge potential in renewables, chemicals, logistics and digital gaming, which are all huge for our sub-region.

Graham Stuart: I agree with every point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but will he join me in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who, when she was a Treasury Minister, played such a role in not only finding the money to halve the tolls, but setting out the vision, which he has just described, of a more dynamic board, rather than the Stalinist one we had before?

Alan Johnson: I clearly recall paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Putney, but I am happy to do so again—she is so good, they pay tribute to her twice.
	I do not want to speak for long. This Bill is very important for our little corner of the world. There is not a person, organisation, agency or business opposed to this development, and I very much hope the Bill gets its Second Reading this evening.

Norman Baker: I wish briefly to set out the Government’s position on the Bill and the background to it. In short, the Government supports this Bill, and in recognition of that I am joined on the Front Bench by not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), but the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). We see the Bill as an essential part of a sustainable settlement for the management and finances of the Humber bridge to endure for the next 25 years or so. This is the outcome of considerable work by all the local MPs—of all parties—the four Humber area local authorities and the Humber Bridge Board, working together to respond positively to the Government’s Humber bridge review. I would like to record my appreciation of that work.
	The Government launched the Humber bridge review on 14 June 2011. We consulted widely, and completed work on assessing the economic impacts of the bridge, and the level of its tolls, on the Humber area economy. We announced our conclusions on 29 November 2011. The Government recognised that the Humber bridge has a unique history, and had a unique burden of interest relative to its construction cost, and therefore offered to write down some £150 million of the bridge debt. That was conditional on the bridge board and local authorities submitting a proposal for reform of the structure of the bridge board, and the Humber area local authorities taking on full responsibility for the remaining lower level of debt, and sharing that responsibility out much more broadly and realistically between them.
	The bridge board and local authorities responded positively, and came forward with a proposal for reforms, which the Government accepted, and a deal was struck on 29 February 2012, almost a year ago to the day. Some of those reforms could be enacted by the Government with secondary legislation, and that was done during 2012, as I will describe. Other reforms required primary legislation, and the Government agreed to support a private Bill to be promoted by the bridge board to achieve them—that Bill is what we are supporting today.
	Looking at the reform package as a whole, the core principles for the governance of the bridge set by the Humber Bridge Act 1959 do not change. The first of those is that the bridge is owned by the Humber area community through the Humber Bridge Board, with democratic accountability through local authority members forming a majority on the board. The second is that the costs of building and maintaining the bridge be borne by its users, through the charging of tolls. That is the long-standing practice for major estuarial crossings in England and Wales. The third principle is that the bridge board has the responsibility to run the bridge efficiently and safely, and to set an adequate level of toll to meet its costs. Any shortfall in toll revenue is made up by a levy on the bridge board’s constituent local authorities. Turning to the component parts of the reform package, two reforms were enacted by the Government in 2012. First, the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order 2012 wrote down £150 million of the £332 million bridge debt, and set a fixed interest rate of 4.25% on the remaining debt. That enabled the bridge board to reduce the bridge tolls substantially on 1 April 2012, including halving the toll for cars from £3 to £1.50. Incidentally, the Chancellor was given the credit for announcing that, but it is only fair to say, even if I get myself into trouble, that the driving force in securing the reduction was the right hon. Member for Putney rather than the Chancellor.
	In the first nine months of reduced tolls, 429,000 additional vehicle trips were made across the bridge, an increase of 9.2%. Secondly, the Humber Bridge Board (Membership) Order 2012 reduced the bridge board from 22 local councillors to four, one from each of the Humber area local authorities.
	This private Bill provides for those parts of the reform package that require primary legislation. I want to draw attention to two reforms that meet the Government’s requirements for the February 2012 deal. First, clause 3 brings representatives of the local enterprise partnership on to the board, giving the Humber area business community a stake in the good management of the bridge and the opportunity to bring its energy and commercial expertise to its day-to-day running. Secondly, clause 7 ensures that the incentive on the bridge board to set a toll adequate to meet its costs is shared equally between all the Humber area local authorities. That is a major improvement from the previous arrangement, when approximately 98% of the cost of any revenue shortfall fell on the council tax payers of the city of Hull.
	The other provisions in the Bill have been worked up by the bridge board and local authorities to modernise the powers of the bridge board to manage its affairs efficiently and transparently and to allow it to act commercially to develop sources of revenue other than tolls while remaining democratically accountable to the local community. On that basis, we have agreed as a Government to support them. I shall not go through them all now, but I want to draw attention to clause 11, which removes the Secretary of State from the decision-making process on setting the level of tolls while retaining the local community safeguards and rights to be consulted on any change in the tolls. That will save much time and taxpayers’ money and is a good example of the implementation of the Government’s localism agenda.
	The Humber bridge review provides an affordable and long-term sustainable solution for repaying the Humber bridge debt and allows the bridge to play its fullest possible part in the success of the Humber area economy and community.

Graham Stuart: The Minister will be aware that 70% of the bridge’s capacity, with the highest tolls in the country, was unused in an area of high unemployment and low average income. This is a tremendous step forward for the area and, when we combine it with the improvements to the A164 and the Beverley southern relief road, he and other Ministers can be proud of the coalition Government’s contribution to the area and its transport infrastructure at a time of such general austerity.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for those comments and concur with the analysis that this will make a significant difference to the economy of the area, for which Members across the House have argued successfully.
	The agreed reforms support effective local management of the bridge and accountability to the local community, taking into account the views of all stakeholders and ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. The private Bill is an essential part of the reform package, and I commend it to the House.

Nicholas Dakin: I want simply to make a few points. First, I recognise the contribution many people have made to the management and governance of the bridge over many years. They have done a good job within the statutory requirements that the bridge board has placed on them, but now is the time for the changes in the Bill to release the dynamism that is necessary if the bridge is to be fit not only for the present but for the future. Hon. Members who have already spoken have emphasised the opportunities that the Bill presents, and it is also an opportunity to deliver localism in action. That localism is represented by the fact that MPs from across the parties and across the region have worked together in unison, as have local authorities, the business community and the local enterprise partnership. Not just the reduction of tolls, in which the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) assisted and for which she has properly been recognised in this debate, and the setting up of local enterprise zones and the local enterprise partnership have helped to drive the local area forward. That is localism in action, which will be further underscored and driven forward if we support the Bill tonight.

Martin Vickers: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. It has been a long time coming in many ways and I thank the Minister for his résumé and for his efforts. I also thank the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who, right from the start, saw the area’s potential and the impact the bridge tolls were having on the local economy. Like my colleagues, I thank them for that. As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, we build bridges to unite people. We did not quite succeed in that respect, but we have now shown that united action by politicians of all colours on both sides
	of the river can achieve something. I hope that we will push forward with other enterprises for the Humber. It is a great economic area with fantastic potential, and I am sure that the Bill will seal the deal.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that I was eight or nine when the original Humber Bridge Bill was first introduced. Sadly, that is the case. I am also one of the campaigners of longest standing. I was looking it up; in 1986 I spoke in a debate in the former Grimsby borough council to demand abolition of or a reduction in, the tolls.
	What has been said of the business potential of the local economy is particularly important. My area, especially around Immingham docks, is a major centre for the haulage industry and it has greatly benefited from the changes. But in many ways it is the personal cases that emphasise the point. People on the south bank have to travel to Hull for cancer treatment and treatment for other serious illnesses and the tolls have been a particular burden on the families of many people whom I represent and those in neighbouring constituencies. Unless we get this Bill on the books, the board cannot reduce the tolls for those seeking treatment, and it is important that we get it as soon as possible.

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend has reminded me about Humber Action Against Tolls and in particular Jenny Walton, who has struggled with a terrible illness and has been on the receiving end of the high tolls. She should get a lot of credit for the work she has done.

Martin Vickers: My hon. Friend has stolen my words. I was going to mention Jenny and the great work that she has done.
	Some colleagues may express fears about the powers of the board. They need to remember that four out of six members of the board will now, in effect, be directly elected and accountable to their local communities, and that will be a restraint. Only if you live in the area do you appreciate how big an issue this is locally. Public opinion will ensure that the board drives tolls down to their absolute minimum not only in the foreseeable future but beyond that. It has already announced that it can maintain tolls at the present level for another three years.

Philip Davies: As my hon. Friend may know, I used to live in the area, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). My hon. Friend spoke about the concerns about and the opportunities presented by reducing the cost for people who have certain medical conditions. Does he feel that it would be worth putting any of those things in the Bill so that they are not left to the discretion of the board members, so that we can guarantee the outcome that he seeks—reductions for patients and control of future price rises?

Martin Vickers: I can see why my hon. Friend would consider that desirable, but if we start listing illnesses that qualify for exemption from the toll, we will discriminate against other perhaps lesser known illnesses. It is easy to say that we will exempt cancer patients, but what about others with equally serious diseases? It would be wrong, and it is surely for local people to determine these things.
	One important part of Cleethorpes is the tourist trade. We have already seen the tourism industry pull together with some initiatives to attract people across the bridge such as “With entry into Pleasure Island you get your toll back.” It has clearly been a boost for the local economy, which is desperately needed in an area of high unemployment where growth is the key to the future. I urge colleagues to give the Bill a Second Reading and support it throughout its various stages.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I rise very briefly to put on record the Opposition’s support for the Bill; to congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and his colleagues on making sure that it was debated this evening; and to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for indicating the cross-Chamber support for the Bill.
	The Minister outlined in some detail the nature of the Bill and we look forward to discussing it more fully in Committee. It is also nice that the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) is in her place to hear the nice things that have been said about her. We have crossed swords on several issues over the years, and it is nice when sometimes we can congratulate Members on the other side, rather than criticise them. We support the Bill and we look forward to its swift passage.

Christopher Chope: It is because of me that this debate is taking place at all. I was much criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for saying that we should have a debate. I said to him privately, and repeat publicly, that I thought that such a debate would redound to his benefit, because he would be able to explain the good work that he had put into trying to achieve the objectives of the Bill. I said to him that if the Bill were not debated on Second Reading, it would—because it is an unopposed Bill and there is no petition against it—go to an Unopposed Bill Committee, and then come back to the House for Third Reading, without a Report stage, so there would be no opportunity for people to move any amendments or make any points about it, whether good or bad. I hope that my hon. Friend now understands the virtues of a debate. The fact that other Members are in their places shows that they, too, understand the importance of being able to articulate concerns about, or the good points of, a piece of legislation.
	It is great to hear support from those on the Opposition Front Bench for the principle of the Laffer curve—reductions in price can increase the volume of activity. We have heard that, in relation to the top rate of tax, they do not believe that the volume of activity would increase. I suggest that they are now speaking with forked tongue, because on this Bill they have conceded the point that reducing the costs increases the activity and thus the yield. I have at home on the back of a napkin the Laffer curve drawn by Dr Laffer himself, and I will revisit that as a result of this debate.
	On a serious point, I hear what my hon. Friends say about local control, but the Bill would give up any direct control over the level of tolls in the future—that is the impact of clause 11. As my hon. Friend the
	Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) implied in his intervention, there is something to be said for having on the face of the Bill some safeguards for local people against possible future increases in the level of tolls beyond the rate of inflation. At the moment, they have been halved, but nothing in the Bill would safeguard against the introduction of differential tolls, for example.

Andrew Percy: I take my hon. Friend’s point, but the primary responsibility of the bridge body is to service the debt, so either way local taxpayers pay. Either the road user pays through the tolls or responsibility reverts to the local authorities. So there is no safeguard because the safeguard of not having a toll rise is that it would then revert to the local taxpayers to pay for anyway.

Christopher Chope: I take my hon. Friend’s point, and the arrangements are now for a much more equitable relationship. Certainly when I was a Transport Minister it was an impossible subject to deal with, because there was no incentive for the other local authorities involved to be reasonable on these issues. However, that would not stop something being written on the face of Bill. Even if there is no demand locally for it and there are no petitions against the Bill at this stage, it would still be possible for people to petition against the Bill when it gets to the other place if they are concerned about the lack of any assurances in relation to tolls.
	I raised with my hon. Friend the issue of the maintenance fund. Clause 9 says that the maintenance fund can be reduced. Money can be taken from the maintenance fund and spent on other things. I believe that we have too much crumbling infrastructure in this country, much of it owned and managed by local authorities that have refused to use the money that has been given to them, often by central Government, for the purposes of the proper maintenance of that infrastructure. In my constituency, the A338 Bournemouth spur road comes to mind as an example. I am concerned that we give power in the Bill for money that has specifically been put aside for the maintenance of an important structure to be spent on something else.
	We know that bridges decay, and what is happening with the new Forth bridge is an example. I hope that when he responds to the debate, my hon. Friend will explain why the promoters of the Bill feel that the existing maintenance fund is topped up too high. If it is topped up too high and they want the power to reduce it, why was that not taken into account in the negotiations over the reduction in the debt and the taxpayers’ money that went into it?
	Those are reasonable questions to ask in the context of a debate such as this. I was chided for asking what this had to do with my constituents. My constituents are national taxpayers and they do not want to be told that the Humber bridge needs to be rebuilt and the only way it can be rebuilt is with national taxpayers’ money because the maintenance fund was not used for the purposes for which it was set up. That is my concern and that is why I ask these questions in relation to clause 9.
	I do not and never did wish to prevent the Bill from making progress, but it is important that we establish a principle that such legislation does not go through on
	the nod, so that we all know what we are talking about and we give it our express consent, rather than letting it go through by default.

Philip Davies: I commend all my colleagues on both sides of the House from east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire for their efforts in coming together to get the Bill to this stage. Clearly, they all work together well. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on making sure that we can have a debate about these matters.
	People may ask what this has to do with the people in Shipley. Well, people in Shipley use the Humber bridge too. On their many visits to east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire they are expected to cough up when they go over the Humber bridge, just as much as anybody in east Yorkshire is expected to cough up when they go over it, so of course we all have an interest. As I made clear in an earlier intervention, I lived for a number of years in Haltemprice and Howden and at that time was a regular user of the Humber bridge. I am delighted about what the Government have done in reducing the cost for people using the bridge, which will be warmly welcomed in that part of the world. I am all for reducing taxes and costs.
	I have no objection to the Bill. It is a good rule of thumb that if it is good enough for my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), it is good enough for me. But like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I would not want the Bill to have any unintended consequences. I think that it is incumbent on us to point out any problems we think there might be with the Bill, and then it is ultimately for its promoters to decide whether they want to take heed of that view or ignore it. If they have considered it, do not have a problem and want to ignore it, that is fine by me, but I think that it would be remiss of us not to flag up some issues so that people can take them away to consider.
	I do not want to go through the whole Bill and so will focus my remarks on the two main considerations that I think might impact upon, and potentially upset, local residents. One relates to the bridge toll. It seems slightly bizarre to me that after the Government have reduced the charge for crossing the bridge, which I think we all approve of, we might be about to allow other people effectively to overturn that reduction in the not-too-distant future and start putting up charges.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes indicated that he thought that the matter should be decided locally, and that because those people would all be elected locally, they faced the prospect of being voted out if they put the fees up and it proved unpopular. But that is not necessarily how I read the Bill. If the members of the Humber Bridge Board were directly elected, there would be some merit in his argument, because they could be directly elected on the basis of their record on the board—but that, of course, is not how it works.
	Schedule 1 makes it clear that the board members will not be directly elected at all; they will, in effect, be appointed by the various local authorities. They might well be elected councillors in their particular field, but when they come up for re-election to Hull city council,
	North Lincolnshire council or the East Riding of Yorkshire council, they will not simply be voted in for their particular ward based on their track record on the Humber Bridge Board. They might represent a ward in which there are not many people who use the bridge, so it might not be a big consideration when they come up for re-election. They will face re-election based on their track record of working hard in the local ward and on the other work they do on the local council.
	Therefore, I do not see that there will be direct elected legitimacy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes would have us believe, based on how he responded to my earlier intervention. I still fear that people will be able to use their position on the board to vote through toll increases that are unpopular with the local community but will not face the sanction that he would like them to face at a subsequent election.

Martin Vickers: My hon. Friend is making a perfectly good argument for having more directly elected officials and politicians, and in principle I am very much in favour of that, but the reality, of course, is that he could apply the same argument to the role of Government Ministers, who are not directly elected. It is just an impossible situation. As I said in my contribution, the key is that four of the six board members are elected. Because of the importance of the issue in the locality, I can assure him that it would be very foolish of the board members to act irresponsibly in any way when it comes to toll increases.

Philip Davies: I take my hon. Friend’s point, and he might be satisfied that there will be sufficient accountability. I merely wanted to flag up the fact that people might want to consider some additional safeguards in the Bill to prevent tolls from reaching levels that would be unacceptable to the local community. I know that that is not his intention or, as far as I can see, that of any Members from Humberside—an awful term that I object to greatly. I do not think that it is the intention of anyone from both sides of the Humber to see fees go up. I do not think that anyone supporting the Bill wants to see that. My concern is that that might be an unintended consequence of the Bill without additional safeguards.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill gives the board the power to have differential charges for the residents of the four local authorities concerned and for non-residents, so there is the possible scenario whereby the charges for residents of the four local authorities would be kept down while the charges for visitors, such as my constituents and those of my hon. Friend, would be pushed up. Should not the Bill provide a safeguard against that?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We wish to represent the best interests of our constituents too, so we need to be cautious about that.

Andrew Percy: I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend, and I understand his argument, but I think that he is failing to understand that the primary purpose of the board is to service the bridge’s debt. That is what it is there to do and that is what the tolls are necessary for, so the idea that it is suddenly going to shove them up to five quid overnight is wrong—it is not going to happen, to be polite about it. We must remember that the
	primary purpose of the board is to service the debt, and that is done either through the tolls or through a levy on the local authorities.

Philip Davies: I take my hon. Friend’s point and his reassurance. However, he must accept that although we have seen a change in strategy this evening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has noted, some people will believe politically that the best way to raise money to service the debt is to increase taxes or, in this case, charges. The people on the board may not accept the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that the best way to increase the revenue stream is to reduce the price—they may take the view that the best way to service the debt is to increase prices—so there is no guarantee that what he suggests will always prevail. I will not go on for too much longer because I do not want inadvertently to talk out his Bill, but there is a concern about what might happen, and it is worth putting that on the record and asking him to think a little more about whether a provision should be inserted into the Bill to prevent any potential problem further down the line.
	I have two final points. The first is about the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes wants to be given a full or partial relief from the toll, perhaps because of medical conditions. He said that when one makes a list one might inadvertently miss something off and cause a problem, and I understand that. However, an intention to give certain people a relief is only that—an intention. Nothing in the Bill would force it to happen or guarantee it. People could have their hopes raised and then see them dashed. It would be unfortunate if the board had a change of heart, or its personnel changed, and it no longer felt that a relief was appropriate or affordable because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole says, their primary responsibility is to service the debt.
	It might therefore be worth inserting a provision—it does not have be as specific as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes perhaps inferred from my intervention—to make it clear that there should be some form of relief for people with, for example, serious medical conditions. It need not specify anything in particular but would make sure that what he intended happened in reality. One of the many unfortunate things in politics is people’s hopes being raised and then dashed when other people have made promises that they cannot keep. It would be good if we could demonstrate in the Bill that this provision would be an inevitable consequence of its being passed, whereas at the moment it is just an aspiration and a hope that cannot be guaranteed.
	My final point is about clause 5 on allowances and expenses, about which I made an intervention earlier. I took the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole about out-of-pocket expenses. I do not think that anybody will reasonably object to people being able to recover their out-of-pocket expenses, but that is not exactly what the clause says. It says:
	“The Board may pay to each director of the Board such allowances and expenses as the Board may from time to time determine.”
	With the best will in the world, whatever the intention and whatever expectations people may have, that gives an awful lot of scope under the Bill for people to be paid allowances and expenses that local residents may
	consider at some time to be excessive. This kind of thing can often build up resentment if it does not come with the support of the local public. If the intention is for people to have their out-of-pocket expenses repaid—I would not object to that and I am certain that the vast majority of local residents would not, either—perhaps the Bill should make it clear that that is what it means, rather than say
	“such allowances and expenses as the Board may determine from time to time,”
	which would give people scope to vote for considerable amounts of money that others would find unacceptable or offensive.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that the Bill does not even use the word “reasonable” with regard to allowances and expenses.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill gives carte blanche to the board to vote for any amount of money it chooses. There does not seem to be a restriction, aside from the expectation voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes that the four elected people would be voted out on their ear at the next election. There is no guarantee, however, that that would happen. People will not be judged on that alone. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole to consider these points. I understand what he and Members from all parties and from both sides of the Humber intend to happen, and I would not wish for the Bill not to deliver on their or their constituents’ hopes and expectations.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on allowing us to have this debate. All the private Bills we have debated over a number of years have involved certain points that the promoters have not given consideration to or that, with hindsight, they might have done differently. This debate has given us an opportunity to look at such points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole will take some of our concerns on board and even table some modest amendments when the Bill goes to Committee.

Andrew Percy: This has been a good debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has not spoken for a very long time, for allowing us to have it, although I do not think I would have thanked him if his intention had been to talk the Bill out. I take on board his genuine principle that legislation should be properly scrutinised in this place, frustrating though that may be for us locally. His contribution was welcome for its content and its length. I will ask the bridge board to respond to him about the maintenance fund. My understanding is that, at present, it has to be set at a certain level, even when it is not necessary to spend it all. The Bill does not allow the board to use the maintenance fund to offset interest payments and suchlike. I understand that that is where the flexibility comes from, but I will ask the board to respond.
	I do not agree with my hon. Friend on taxpayers’ national liability. As I have said throughout the debate, the liability rests ultimately with local people through either the money paid by users or the levy on the local authorities. If the bridge fell down overnight, it would
	be put up, I hope, according to the same principles on which the original bridge was constructed. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has set out those principles, which are that those who use the bridge pay for it. I do not think there would be any recourse to taxpayers. Obviously, they put up the loan originally, but the payments would come from the tolls.
	I thought we would get through this debate without any mention of the dreaded “H” word, but I forgive my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for using it and will respond to his reasonable point about allowances, which I am sure all local MPs will want to pursue. However, the new members—the four members from each authority—would have to be appointed every year through their full council meeting, so if they went a bit bonkers and sought to pay themselves £100,000 per year, they could be thrown off the board by their local authorities. That is an extra check of democratic accountability, because they are accountable to their local authorities. That could have happened in the past—although it never has—because a local authority, had it wanted to, could have used its own procedures to introduce a special responsibility allowance to pay the chairman of the bridge board. It would also be foolish for board members to suggest payment of anything other than out-of-pocket expenses. I think that local MPs from all parties would be particularly critical of them if they tried to do that.
	On the toll rise, I understand the point about safeguards. However, the current safeguard, which I think is what my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Shipley are asking for, does not provide much of a safeguard, because when a toll increase is sought, it is always granted on the grounds that it is necessary to fulfil the primary responsibility of the board, which is to repay the debt and maintain the bridge in good order. That will remain the primary responsibility and tolls will be set to reflect that.
	Given that the board is finely balanced between two Conservative members and two Labour members, the politics of the situation mean that a rise would never happen. I do not suspect that the business community will be coming to the bridge board wanting to put up the bridge tolls—probably quite the reverse.
	Some excellent points have been raised which I and other local MPs will want to pursue. I am delighted that we have got to this stage and that we have not run out of time, because this is a much-needed change for our local area. We are all delighted to have been involved in making it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

PETITION
	 — 
	Alternatives to Vivisection

Jonathan Evans: The petition has arisen following revelations about the unusual nature of experiments carried out on live kittens at Cardiff university, which involve the sewing up of their eyelids. A number of my constituents were so shocked by the
	revelations that Mr Derek Hector and Mr Dom Spens, who are committed to animal welfare and recognise the importance of this Chamber, organised a petition. They managed to gather 2,000 signatures at Cardiff university and six locations in central Cardiff over a period of barely 24 hours. That is an indication of the concern in my city over the issue.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Derek Hector of 68 Heol y Forlan, Whitchurch, Cardiff, CF14 1BA and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners consider that vivisection is dangerous to humans since drugs that have been passed for human use following testing on animals have later been found to have caused birth defects, organ failure and death; further that vivisection needlessly kills hundreds of thousands of animals and that vivisection delays the development of safe advances in medical, surgical and veterinary progress. It also declares that vivisection is a huge cost to tax payers, Cardiff University having spent more than £1.5 million during 2011 on the use of animals in experiments and that this is unacceptable when there are other 450 viable alternatives to vivisection which give far more accurate results.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward proposals for ending animal experimentation throughout Great Britain, including at Cardiff University.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001156]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (HEREFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Bill Wiggin: As the House will know, the Government are set to provide approximately £72 billion of grants to local authorities in England for 2013-14. Despite the enormity of that figure, there is no disputing that overall spending must be reduced. However, even though the cake is smaller—indeed, precisely because the cake is smaller—we must ensure that rural areas such as Herefordshire receive their fair share of funding. For far too long, the historical balance has been tipped against them.
	Herefordshire is the fourth most sparsely populated county in England. It is made up of five market towns, villages, remote farms and hamlets, as well as Hereford city in the centre. At 42,500, the number of elderly residents in Herefordshire as a proportion of the population is well above the national average. Just over a fifth of Herefordshire’s population, 22%, is aged 65 and over, compared with just 17% in England and Wales as a whole. Rural sparsity is an expensive challenge for a small county. Costs for transport, social care, schools, ambulances and health services are all pushed up. Yet Herefordshire is not and has not been a well resourced council. The 2012-13 budget figures show that formula grant funding per capita is £311, which is 13% below the national average of £358.
	What can we do? The council has just voted to raise council tax by 1.9%, because it feels that with only 1% being given by the Government, if it freezes the council tax it will fall further and further behind over time. I support a freeze in council tax, and I do not agree with increasing it, as that will have a real impact on already stretched household budgets, especially for the retired and those living on pensions. Councillors have made efficiency savings of £21 million since 2011, and a further £9.1 million of savings are due to be delivered this year, and once the fat has been trimmed the pickings are lean. Factor in a below-average level of council tax, alongside a relatively low base, and it is clear that Herefordshire is running out of options. That is a state of affairs with which many of my colleagues representing rural areas will be depressingly familiar.
	We know from research that urban authorities receive far greater levels of financial assistance under the current system. Recently, the Government have taken some positive steps towards redressing the balance. Technical adjustments mean that the formula will do a better job of reflecting the additional cost of providing services in rural areas.

Jesse Norman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As the other MP for the glorious county of Herefordshire, may I add my voice to his on the issue of underfunding and draw his attention and that of the House to a study that I commissioned in March 2010? It showed that the cumulative underfunding for Herefordshire in the period from 2005 to 2010, compared with comparable authorities, was £174 million over five years, or roughly £35 million a year, including a shortfall of £85 million in support for Herefordshire council.
	I commend my hon. Friend for drawing wider attention to the issue of gross underfunding and the important challenge that faces the country and the Government.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend and neighbour—it says in the Bible, “Love thy neighbour”, and he is an easy man to love and I know his constituents love him deeply—is absolutely right to be concerned. There is some good news, because on 4 February my hon. Friend the Minister announced that 95 authorities would receive a transitional efficiency support for services in sparse areas grant, of which £531,374 would go to Herefordshire. That and the technical adjustments that I mentioned are excellent news and speak of the coalition’s determination to bring about real change, and let us never forget Labour’s pledge to deliver £52 billion of local government cuts.
	There is still work to be done. First, the efficiency support for services in sparse areas funding has been provided for 2013-14 only. A one-off grant cannot be budgeted for in rising to the challenges that rural authorities face when delivering services in geographically sprawling areas. Those are permanent challenges that can, and will, never be completely overcome. It is time to give serious thought to our long-term future.
	Secondly, the counterintuitive damping mechanism is undoing much of the Government’s good work to date. There is undoubtedly common sense in promoting stability and protecting councils from violent change. However, there is no logic in freezing the system completely for six years, which benefits only a select few London commuter belt authorities with high house prices. The Government should look again at that time scale.
	Under the summer consultation figures, Herefordshire should have benefitted from an extra £6 million per annum. No less than 74% of that, or £4.4 million, was subsequently lost through damping. Across the country as a whole, that figure rises to at least £60 million. That is a huge amount. Quite simply, the mechanism is preventing money from being allocated where it is needed. Expectations were raised and sadly dashed. Herefordshire council specifically requested that the Government’s adjustments for sparsity be reflected in cash terms and excluded from the damping or smoothing effect, yet that has not happened. We now face a situation where the rural penalty has been reduced at best by one or two points from 50%, when it really needs to be down to 40%.
	It is true that the changes to business rates from 1 April will mean that local authorities can keep 50% of business rate growth. That is designed to increase local employment and income by attracting new businesses to an area. However, while useful, it may be an incentive that urban authorities, with their existing infrastructure, may be better placed to benefit from than rural areas such as mine. I ask Ministers to look again at Herefordshire council’s suggestion. Alternatively, damping could be unwound or the special grant continued until the sums truly add up.
	Rural communities have been chronically underfunded for more than a decade. My constituents have faced further blows from rising fuel costs, energy bills and, as has been recently in the news, turbulence for beef farmers. Approximately a fifth of households in Herefordshire
	live in poverty. The gap between the most and least deprived areas is widening, and there are many deprived areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) as well. The Government have recognised this need and have risen to the challenge only to be dampened down. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at this again. If he cannot un-dampen or de-dampen in the immediate short term, then can he try looking at the longer term so that councils can budget wisely rather than raise council tax?
	In short, I criticise the council for seeking to tax constituents further, but I congratulate it on the savings it has made so far. Our Government have made a mistake by allowing damping to undo their good intentions, and with the long periods of time that these budgets cover, I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for what he has done to try to help—£531,374 is most welcome. We all know that budgets must shrink and I am not calling for more spending, only a fairer allocation.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) for raising this important topic, and for offering me the opportunity to set out what we are doing to help local government, particularly in rural areas, from April onwards.
	On 4 February, I put before the House the final settlement for 2013-14. I want to be clear that behind all our thinking on local government funding is the fact that it is vital that councils continue to play their part, as my hon. Friend said, to tackle the inherited budget deficit by making sensible savings and delivering value for money for the taxpayer. As I did on 4 February, I want to make it clear that this is a new settlement for local government, one now based on self-determination and financial independence for local authorities. We are seeking to shift power from Whitehall to town hall. We are providing a direct financial incentive for councils to promote growth, something my hon. Friend touched on in his speech. Authorities will directly retain nearly £11 billion of business rates instead of returning them to the Treasury, and they will be able to keep the growth on that share of business rates. Councils that strive and deliver the benefit of growth by doing the right thing by their communities will bring in jobs and business, and will gain the financial rewards themselves.
	Importantly, in this settlement we have accepted, as my hon. Friend noted, that rural areas have been comparatively underfunded. We have therefore ensured that there is proper recognition of the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas. We have made adjustments to relative needs formulae to reflect the greater cost of providing services in rural areas—one of only three formula changes in the settlement. We have increased the weight for super-sparse areas in the formula; doubled the sparsity weight for older people’s social care and the district level environmental, protective and cultural services block; reinstated the sparsity adjustment for county level environmental protective and cultural services; and introduced a sparsity adjustment for fire and rescue. As a result, funding per head is reducing by less in predominantly rural authorities than in predominantly urban authorities, within all classes. The
	spending power of Herefordshire council is reducing by less than the England average in both 2013-14 and 2014-15.
	We listened to representations from rural authorities and had good conversations with them during the consultation process. That is why, as my hon. Friend said, we have also provided an £8.5 million grant to help 95 rural authorities with sparse populations secure efficiencies in services in 2013-14. He is right to say that this is a one-year grant, giving councils a year to go further with some of the efficiency work that many of them are doing very well. As I promised, I will continue talking to councils over the next few months about the long-term future of rural areas. As he said, Herefordshire council will also receive one of the largest allocations of that funding—£531,000—and Hereford and Worcester fire authority will receive an additional £13,000. This extra funding will support rural areas to achieve sustainable savings in the services they provide in sparsely populated areas.
	Overall, the settlement provides a fair funding deal, with protections for the most grant dependent authorities, whether they are rural or urban, and leaves councils with considerable total spending power. The settlement is not about what councils can take—that is the local government finance of the past—but about what they can make. It represents a watershed moment for council finances, with the localisation of £11 billion of business rates, providing a strong incentive for councils of all types to go for growth and reducing their dependency on central grant. It means that 70% of funding will be raised locally, compared with just over 50% at the moment.
	As a top-up authority, Herefordshire council gets the support of an element of funding that will stay fixed in real terms and pays no levy on growth in its business rates. That means that it keeps 49% of all the business rates it collects, with no upper limit. Herefordshire has forecast that it will collect more in business rates in 2013-14 than is implicit in its business rates baseline, meaning that it will get an immediate boost from the new business rates retention system.
	Then there is the new homes bonus, which rewards councils for delivering more homes and through which more than £2 million of funding will go to Herefordshire council in 2013-14. This is a fundamental change from the old system. Councils striving for growth, building houses and delivering local businesses will find themselves rewarded with increased revenue. Local authorities can and should now move away from the “begging bowl” culture and focus their efforts on delivery, growth and efficiencies. That is also why we introduced the new efficiency challenge award of a further £9.2 million that councils, including Herefordshire, can bid for.
	To be clear, councils account for a quarter of all public spending—I appreciate that my hon. Friend made this point—so it is vital that they continue to play their part in tackling the horrendous inherited budget deficit
	by making sensible savings and delivering value for money for the taxpayer. Many are doing that very well. We are giving local authorities that bit of extra time and the reforms necessary to allow them the freedom to deliver that. As it looks to 2014 and beyond, local government needs to continue to find better and more efficient ways of doing things, and there remains scope for sensible savings. The best councils are protecting the front line—from weekly bin collections to library services and meals on wheels—getting rid of waste and inefficiency and helping to keep council tax down.
	I wish to make it clear again that we want to keep the focus on safeguarding vital public services and protecting families and pensioners in rural as well as urban areas. That is why, despite financial pressures, for the third year running we will continue supporting those who insulate residents from further council tax hikes and why we have set aside an extra £550 million for local authorities to support council tax. All councils have a moral duty to freeze council tax at a time when the standard and cost of living for our hard-working residents are tough.
	I join my hon. Friend in calling clearly and firmly for Herefordshire council to reconsider finding that saving of just 0.9% in order to take advantage of the scheme and freeze council tax for the benefit of its residents. It says it needs to increase council tax by 0.9% at a time when, despite the pressure it said it felt last year, it managed to increase its reserves. I suspect that, like me, residents across Herefordshire will wonder how those two things can be married. Those who would prefer to continue with increases and see residents miss out should answer to local taxpayers and have the courage to go for a figure that would require a referendum in order to get local democratic support.
	The settlement represents a fair funding deal that protects the most grant-dependent authorities, provides new opportunities for councils to benefit from the rewards of growth, and supports authorities to drive through further service reforms and efficiencies. It recognises the additional costs of providing services in sparse areas, reducing funding per head by less in predominantly rural authorities than in their urban counterparts. The additional £8.5 million of funding will support rural authorities this year in finding further savings in sparsely populated areas.
	I congratulate Herefordshire on the excellent work that it has done so far in curbing its budgets and being efficient, but there is more that it can do. As my hon. Friend said, it should certainly be protecting its taxpayers by implementing a council tax freeze. Councils everywhere should now seize the opportunities that the settlement presents and focus their efforts on going for growth.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.